London Traffic: Congestion Charging

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	Whether they consider that the plans of the Mayor for London to improve traffic flow in London are workable.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government and the Mayor both recognise that traffic congestion is a problem in London. Indeed, the Government have a public service agreement target to reduce congestion in large urban areas below current levels by 2010. The Mayor's plans to tackle congestion are outlined in his transport strategy and his particular scheme of congestion charging is currently the subject of consultation in London. It is the responsibility of the Mayor to satisfy himself that his particular plans to improve traffic flow are workable. This morning the department received his plan for spending the net proceeds of the charging scheme.

Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer but does he not think that he has ducked my Question very successfully? I asked him whether or not the Government think that the Mayor's plans are workable. Of course, I know that the matter is the Mayor's responsibility, but surely the Government should also have some responsibility for it. If the scheme to charge people a fee for entering the central area of London in a car is introduced next year at much the same time as the whole of Trafalgar Square is closed and the streets around it are pedestrianised, are we not likely to see some of the largest traffic queues ever in London? Might it not be sensible, therefore, for the Government to move with the Mayor to bring in a much stricter veto on the holes which are constantly being dug in London's main streets by utility after utility?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Lord economically asked about seven questions in one, but I shall seek to focus on the central one. The 1999 Act placed the responsibility for transport in London clearly on the Mayor and on Transport for London. The Government's responsibilities in that respect are basically to approve the proposals he puts forward for using the net proceeds of the charging when and if it is imposed. Having said that, one would expect the Mayor to be alive to the importance of getting this right in the sense that he does not need me to remind him that he will face an election as Mayor shortly afterwards. I believe that it is one of the largest schemes of congestion charging that has ever been attempted in the world. Clearly, substantial technical, administrative and traffic management issues will have to be addressed by the Mayor before he makes his decision in February next year whether or not to proceed with his current timetable.

Baroness Scott of Needham Market: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether there is any substance in the press speculation that the Government are to drop their plans for a PPP for the Tube in exchange for the Mayor dropping his plans for a congestion charge?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I know of no such plans or proposals. I believe that the Government are currently considering three proposals from the private sector for the three major contracts to modernise the Tube, which, as the House well knows, should bring in some #13 billion worth of investment over the next 15 years, equivalent to #4,000 expenditure for every family in London. Although these issues interconnect, I do not think for a second that they are tradable.

Lord Swinfen: My Lords, the Minister has still not said whether the Government consider that the Mayor for London's plans are workable. Do the Government consider them to be workable or do they consider them to be unworkable?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, the Government have not given a view on that because one does not devolve powers and then seek to second-guess authorities to which the powers are devolved. The Mayor is well aware of his obligations under the Act. The Government have set out in their guidance to local authorities elsewhere in the country what criteria need to be met before the Government will give approval to their schemes. However, in London, the Mayor makes that decision subject to the one caveat I mentioned to the noble Lord who asked the Question. Obviously, there are discussions at high level between the various bodies, but the responsibility rests fundamentally with the Mayor to judge whether he has a sound scheme and whether it is ready to be implemented. The Government broadly support congestion charging, but it has to be done well for it to be effective.

Lord Renton: My Lords, it may help to reach a decision in this matter if I mention that I live 70 miles north of London and that it is quicker and cheaper for me to drive myself from door to door rather than travel by train. On the previous occasion I did that I had to wait 40 minutes at King's Cross for a taxi.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will share the concern that any noble Lord, but particularly the noble Lord, Lord Renton, should be so delayed. He raises an important issue; namely, that it is not simply a matter of congestion charging. There is a range of measures to tackle the intractable problems of major congestion in London. I refer to the London bus initiative which I shall not discuss in detail. My next point is more relevant to the noble Lord's question. A high level group comprising my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport, the Mayor and the Strategic Rail Authority are considering how significant improvements can be made to rail links into London, both by making the existing franchises work significantly better by such obvious measures as having spare drivers, spare trains and more back-up capacity so that if something goes wrong it does not become critical, and by considering major new potential investment schemes such as the east London crossing, both north and south, CrossRail and Thameslink.

Lord Cobbold: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that congestion charging would disadvantage those least able to pay?

Lord Filkin: No, my Lords, I do not agree with that. Those least able to pay are in practice those who are reliant on bus travel for getting around in London. Currently, the level of congestion in London and the lack of adequate priority for buses significantly disadvantages them. I believe that the range of measures to improve bus transport will be considerable. Noble Lords will be delighted to hear that some 800 buses will be fitted with cameras to photograph bus lane infringements. There will be priority improvement measures for 21 bus routes and a range of other measures will seek to raise our bus system to the level that is necessary. That will ensure that those who are most disadvantaged have better transport in London.

Lord Borrie: My Lords, does the Minister agree that in the London area, unless there is a combination in the next five to 10 years of successful plans for congestion charging and improved public transport, we shall have serious gridlock at all rush hours on the model of Tokyo?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I agree with the point that my noble friend made in the first part of his question—that it is crucial to have an integrated approach to the various elements. If we do not have such an approach, I do not know whether we would experience gridlock, but I trust that that will not be the case.
	Noble Lords will be aware that traffic speeds in London have reduced by some 3 miles an hour during the daytime off-peak period from what they were 30 or so years ago. Traffic volumes in central London will increase by at least 15 per cent over the next 15 years. Carrying on as we are is therefore not adequate. That is why the Government's 10-year strategy set out a range of measures to address the problem. For the record, there is substantial agreement between the Mayor, TfL and the 10-year strategy about what needs to be done to improve London's transport system in relation to most, if not all, of the issues. The challenge is to get the implementation right.

Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I urge on the Mayor the wisdom of making some of the schemes experimental, so that when they go wrong, as they definitely will, there will be much better opportunities to alter them.

Lord Filkin: My Lords, there is sense in the advice that the noble Lord offers. To some extent, that is what is happening in other areas of traffic management and transport improvement. For example, the London Borough of Camden is currently piloting a system for lane rentals before such a scheme is extended more widely—if the Government feel that that is necessary. I should have thought, however, that it would be difficult to pilot congestion charging in relation to part of the system because, as we know, it is the central area in its totality that is the problem area. That puts even more emphasis on the importance of ensuring that planning and preparation are well founded and not rushed in any respect.

Earl Ferrers: My Lords, if there is congestion in London, why do the powers that be deliberately add to it? I give the example—I raised this with the Minister the other day—of all the side-roads around Westminster and Victoria, which are being dug up and frantic and uncomfortable humps are put in them. Wherever there is a straight piece of road, it is immediately made smaller because the pavement is extended into it. Is that the responsibility of the council or the Mayor? If it is not the Government's responsibility, will the Minister breathe down the necks of whoever is responsible and tell them to stop it?

Lord Filkin: My Lords, I expressed sympathy with the noble Earl on this issue on a previous occasion. A kinder way of looking at the matter would be to say that the current volume of investment in parts of London is impressive. There does not appear to be a massive shortage of money for such schemes. The sensible answer would be that the works to which the noble Earl referred have an effect on traffic calming—they slow down cars that are approaching junctions and make it easier for pedestrians to cross at crossings. Pedestrians have a stronger sense that they, rather than the cars, have priority. Such efforts improve the quality of the environment. King's Road, for example, feels better compared with the situation some years ago, now that its pavements have been widened, its road lanes narrowed and the access roads have been closed off or had speed reductions put in. I do, however, take the noble Earl's point. This is a matter for the London boroughs rather than the Government or TfL. Discussions will no doubt take place in the usual places on these issues.

Noble Lords: Next Question!

Lord Williams of Mostyn: Yes, my Lords, we are well over time now.

School Playing Fields: Sales

Lord Monro of Langholm: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	How many school playing fields were sold off for development between 1st April 2000 and 31st March 2001; and what the percentage change was from 1999 to 2000.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the information is not available in the format requested by the noble Lord because central records do not show if the land was sold for development. However, between lst April 2000 and 31st March 2001 the Government approved 37 applications to sell school playing fields that were larger than a sports pitch. That is a 9 per cent increase on the 34 applications approved in the previous year. All the applications met our strict criteria.

Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her Answer. Why are there no accurate figures? The Government set up the Playing Fields Monitoring Group in April 2000 to report the figures accurately each month. Is she aware that pages 4 and 6 of the Labour Party's manifesto for 1997—the sports manifesto—gave a clear indication that playing fields would not be sold? However, figures I have show that last year 446 fields were approved for development and only 47 applications were refused. Further, is it true that so far this year 172 consents have been given and only six refused? Is it any surprise that the National Playing Fields Association and the Central Council of Physical Recreation are so concerned about the Government's lack of action?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the noble Lord raises several points, which I shall attempt to answer in detail. I am well aware of the Labour Party's manifesto. Indeed, examining playing field sales falls within my portfolio. I want to put accurate figures on the record. Since October 1998, 95 applications involving the loss of school sports pitches have been determined. Two were rejected. Of the 93 applications that were approved, almost 40 per cent—36 of them—were at closed or closing schools. Therefore, 57 applications were approved at operating schools, 34 of them resulting in improved sports facilities, including new or replacement sports pitches, all-weather pitches and sports halls. Since July, the new advisory panel, which includes the National Playing Fields Association, has had responsibility for determining recommendations to Ministers on which of the proposals should be taken forward. I am delighted with the work that the panel has done so far.

Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if we lose school sports fields, we lose sports fields for the whole community? That means a lower level of activity generally, particularly when one considers that most social activity sports and participation sports need grass pitches. Can the noble Baroness say whether the Department of Health, for example, has been consulted to see what damage is being done to its preventive health scheme by this loss?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the criteria used to determine whether sports fields may be sold are, first, that the remaining playing fields must meet the school's needs, including the needs of other local schools; secondly, that the community of playing fields must be protected; and, thirdly, that any proceeds are used to improve school sports or education facilities. No application failing to meet those criteria can be allowed. We work extremely closely with the Department of Health on all these matters. Indeed, trilateral meetings take place on a regular basis between the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills to discuss sport in general. Officials work closely on all those matters.

Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, can the Minister help the House by giving the statistics relating to the number of sales that were approved in, say, the past 20 years, especially in the 18 years from 1979 to 1997? Is it not hypocritical of Members opposite to complain about defects in the monitoring system when we know that, if they had their way, they would sell the lot?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I welcome my noble friend's comments. Until 1998 there was no control over the sale of school playing fields and, therefore, statistics are incredibly difficult to ascertain. We have attempted to work out a guesstimate of what we believe to have been the case; it shows that probably approximately 30 to 40 playing fields a month were sold off. That compares to a current figure of approximately three a month. However, they are guesstimates, and I should not wish to be held responsible for those figures. We simply do not have the information.
	One substantial change is that the proceeds from sales must be used for education and sports facilities. Only where we are completely satisfied that the money will be used in that way will such sales be agreed. Further, we ensure that the community at large and, in particular, the schools benefit by having additional facilities or, at least, facilities that do not take away sporting opportunities for young people and the community at large.

Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say whether any of the #750 million which the New Opportunities Fund was announced to be giving to sport or any of the additional #31 million of lottery money, as declared by Tessa Jowell in a Written Answer in June this year, has yet been spent on the creation or improvement of playing fields? Indeed, has any of that money been spent on protecting playing fields, used not only by schools but also by local communities, which are under threat?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, #580 million is available from the New Opportunities Fund for PE and sports programmes in England. As noble Lords may be aware, that money will be used to improve PE, sport and adventure. It will also contribute to integrated sport, education and health outcomes, which I consider to be an important part of the New Opportunities Fund spending programme. The allocation of the money has now been announced. I shall give only one or two examples of the allocation, but I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with the full details as I am conscious of your Lordships' time. Eighty-nine million pounds will go to local education authorities in the North West; #81 million to London; and #61 million to the West Midlands. Those funds will be an added and very valuable resource in improving sports facilities throughout England. However, noble Lords are correct in assuming that we need to look at this matter in the context of additional facilities for communities, support for schools and, of course, the outcome in terms of sports activities and health.

The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, can the Minister say how many new playing fields were acquired for schools which lacked them and needed them during the year referred to in the Question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Monro?

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not able to give that information to the right reverend Prelate simply because it would be available on a local education authority basis. However, I am happy to see what information I do have and I shall write to him.

Baroness David: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what is the Government's attitude, if already formulated, towards the launch today by the National Playing Fields Association of a document which states that all playing areas should have six acres as standard? Is that possible? I refer not only to schools but to parks and so on.

Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have our own criteria on which we work very closely with schools to ensure that in the development of schools' playing facilities adequate space is made available for children at both primary and secondary level. I value very much the work of the National Playing Fields Association. I have not yet had the privilege of reading the document that was launched this morning; no doubt it will arrive on my desk during the course of the day. I am sure that I shall be able to welcome it and to say how much we value the contribution that the association makes to this debate and the work that it carries out directly with the department. That work is invaluable not least in looking at the role of schools in sport.

Liver Disease

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: asked Her Majesty's Government:
	What action they are proposing to deal with the increase in the number of deaths due to liver disease, particularly among young women.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government are considering the findings on liver disease, referred to in the Chief Medical Officer's annual report published yesterday. We intend to publish a national strategy to tackle alcohol misuse, which will involve all government departments, local organisations such as the NHS, local authorities and the police, as well as voluntary organisations. We are also investing in alcohol education and health promotion to address the issue of problem drinking, particularly among young people.

Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, what immediate steps can the Government take to create an awareness of the risk, and, in particular, the differential risk, between men and women of excess alcohol consumption over the Christmas period? Can a way be found to incorporate that point into the drink-drive campaign?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the drink-drive campaign has already started and therefore it would be difficult to make changes to it. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness that the Chief Medical Officer's report is a wake-up call. We need to ensure that we get across the right health promotion messages, in particular to young women, to ensure that people are aware of the risks that they run in misusing alcohol. We are giving urgent consideration to the CMO's report, both in relation to short-term and immediate health promotion messages that need to be put across and also in relation to a proposed longer-term alcohol health strategy.

Lord Morgan: My Lords, I declare an interest because my late wife died of liver disease at the age of 42. She died as the result of a university visitation to South-East Asia where, I gather, this type of disease is very prevalent. I wonder what warnings are given to intending visitors to that part of the world.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am not aware whether specific warnings are given in relation to liver disease. There are many causes of liver cirrhosis. It can be present at birth as an inherited disease; it can be, as my noble friend has suggested, a side effect of certain medications; or it can be caused by parasitic infections. However, the most common causes are sustained alcohol misuse or the late effects of infection with one of the hepatitis viruses. However, I take my noble friend's point. As part of a general strategy in relation to alcoholism prevention, I shall certainly be prepared to look at the point that he raises.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Government promised to publish a national strategy consultation paper last year, yet they have still not done so. What is the reason for that delay? Furthermore, the Minister will have noticed two very worrying studies that have taken place into alcohol abuse among teenagers. What in particular is he doing with his colleagues in the DfES to ensure that proper education programmes are run in schools to warn teenagers of the dangers of alcohol abuse?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, over the past three years the Department for Education and Skills has made #21 million available to schools through the Standards Fund to support the training of teachers and to deliver effective drug, alcohol and tobacco education programmes. Such training and programmes are obviously very important and we shall need to evaluate their success.
	So far as concerns the consultation paper, we stated in the NHS Plan that we would implement a strategy by 2004. We shall need to take forward a consultation process as part of that. However, that strategy is best informed by the current work and report of the Chief Medical Officer. I can assure the House that we shall redouble our efforts to ensure that we take forward those messages.

Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, would the Government consider promoting alternatives to drinking for young women and girls, such as healthy living centres where they will be able to take part in such activities as yoga, aerobics and swimming? Does the Minister agree that that would be a positive measure?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I believe that health promotion messages are likely to be more effective with young people if such messages are positive. That is an important consideration which we shall need to take forward.

Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for his Answer. But, why should people with terminal liver disease caused by contaminated NHS blood products, not least young women, be treated less favourably than people with HIV from the same cause? Is not that morally wrong and inhumane?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for raising that question. He will know that the first decision on that matter was taken by the previous government. It was reviewed by this Government on coming into office. The position taken by the Department of Health is that where it is not liable it cannot make specific payments. I am afraid that that is the position in the case of the people mentioned by my noble Friend, who have undoubtedly suffered a great tragedy. That decision was reached only after careful consideration.

Lord Patel: My Lords, is my noble friend aware of the term Xladette" and its effect on young women? If he is, can he tell the House what advice the Government have with regard to it?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I have checked the Concise Oxford Dictionary. The definition of a ladette is a young woman who behaves in a boisterously assertive or crude manner and engages in heavy drinking sessions. That is not to be confused with a Xchapess", of whom there are rather more in your Lordships' House.

Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House what research is being carried out to determine why alcohol affects women's livers more than men's?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I held a meeting with the Director of Research at the Department of Health this morning and asked him that question. Apparently, it is due to metabolism, which means that women have less water and more fat.

Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe: My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister join me in welcoming the establishment of the National Treatment Agency, which assists those suffering from drug addiction to recover? Can he say whether the Government are prepared to extend the activities of that agency to cover alcoholism, as they indicated in the past they might? If so, when is that likely to happen?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank my noble friend. He is right to pay tribute to the potential of the National Treatment Agency. The question of whether its remit should be extended to alcoholism is still under consideration. I cannot give him a date as to when such a decision might be made.

Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the dangers of alcohol do not apply to older people, such as Members of your Lordships' House?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am advised that studies have shown that frequent drinking of a small amount of alcohol, but not more than one to two units per day, can offer protection from heart disease to men aged 40 and over and to post-menopausal women. I would say that the longevity of Members of your Lordships' House pays testimony to the healthy properties of House of Lord's claret.

Lord Turnberg: My Lords, I am sorry to spoil the festive spirit, but is my noble friend the Minister aware that government spending on preventive measures against alcoholism represents only one-twentieth or less of the amount spent on preventing drug addiction? Does he not think that the Government should redress the balance?

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my noble friend makes an important point. The programmes to which he refers have come about as a result of central programmes being developed and centrally funded. Historically, alcohol prevention services have been funded at local level. The department does not hold figures to show how much money is being spent on that. I have no doubt that we shall have to return to the issue of funding as part of developing a national strategy. As part of the development of the health service and health improvement programmes it is open to local health authorities, together with primary care trusts, to look to see whether the development of prevention programmes might be a charge on their own budgets.

Business of the House: Debates this Day

Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Baroness Park of Monmouth set down for today shall be limited to three hours and that in the name of the Lord Mayhew of Twysden to two hours.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Constitution Committee

Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
	Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Baroness Gould of Potternewton be appointed a member of the Select Committee in the place of the Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Zimbabwe

Baroness Park of Monmouth: rose to call attention to the situation in Zimbabwe; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, for over four years, Zimbabwe has patiently and alone suffered a steady and remorseless erosion of freedom and the rule of law, and the world has done little or nothing to help a brave and decent people. As Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the Movement for Democratic Change, said:
	XThere can be no freedom where there is no rule of law, no freedom where people are not safe . . . Zimbabwe's strength lies in racial and ethnic diversity. We will overcome attempts to divide us, we want national integration. We are not interested in racism in reverse".
	There, from a respected trade union leader, we hear that those fighting the battle for democracy and the rule of law are ordinary Zimbabwe citizens, black and white. Too many people in this country and elsewhere chose at first to think that this was a matter concerning the interests of a handful of rich white colonialists selfishly hanging on to land which they callously took from the Africans in colonial times, and that to criticise Mugabe was a racist act and politically incorrect. The truth is that very many of the farms were bought from the government after independence and, after being certified as useless and derelict land, they were then turned into viable farms. They now employ and house large numbers of Africans. There is a school, a clinic, a visiting nurse and a shop on most farms. They are flourishing and viable communities and the lives of the workers are bound up with the farms. Two million people—26 per cent of the labour force—stand or fall with the farms. Most farmers care deeply about their workers.
	President Mugabe's land policies—that is, the seizure of farms and the resettlement of so-called veterans (in fact young, ruthless thugs from the towns who were not born when the independence war was fought)—have nothing to do with land reform. They are, like the brutal military suppression of Matabeleland in the 1980s, a demonstration of ruthless power and revenge for the political rejection Mugabe suffered in the referendum of 1997. They are also an election tactic.
	The 91,000 families supposed to have been resettled when land was bought in the 1980s with funding provided by the British Government were given no funds and no help, and the infrastructure of the farms was stolen or destroyed. Much of the best land was, in any case, given to the government's political friends and much remains unsettled.
	The white farmers have accepted the need for land reform, but they argue that the Africans already on the farms who are familiar with the work and to whom they would gladly sell the infrastructure of farm machinery through the government would have a far better chance to succeed if the government gave them title to the land. Without collateral they cannot secure the loans which every farmer needs to operate.
	The CFU has trained 10,000 peasant farmers a year and runs programmes for water development and bore hole drilling schemes. By 1999, there were nearly 6,000 small farmers whose income was over 215 million Zimbabwe dollars. The government would have none of that and under the fast-track programme have, according to the Secretary General of GAPWUZ, the agricultural union, systemically displaced, in Mashonaland alone, over 15,000 people. The families were told to find a place to live elsewhere and ended up on the road or in the equivalent of refugee camps, but without care. Only 50 out of more than 700 farm families were resettled in one district because the veterans demanded party cards in the vetting exercise which they conducted.
	Farm workers are punished because they are suspected of supporting the MDC. Mugabe's stated aim is to create no more than a subsistence economy. He wants,
	Xto put Africans on the land so that they can grow food to feed themselves and to pay for health and education services".
	In fact the veterans are not even doing that. Their main object has been to loot and destroy, and to terrorise their own people.
	The commercial farms earn over 40 per cent of the country's revenue from exports. Now they are actually forbidden to plant. In one week last year, over 10,000 hectares of grazing was burnt. There is no grazing for the animals, no currency to buy cattle feed and no diesel to move it. As the order not to plant includes maize—maize planting last year was down 40 to 60 per cent—a maize shortage is certain and famine will follow. The tourist and ancillary industries and the industrial infrastructure connected with farming are collapsing. In April last year the budget deficit was 15 per cent of GDP. Interest was absorbing 45 per cent of total government revenue. On the foreign exchange front, the country was 1,000 million US dollars short of requirements.
	We are looking at the murder of a once prosperous country, a country where the veterans can enter a hospital and beat doctors and nurses for treating an MDC casualty and where 551 schools, according to the teachers' union, have been invaded with over 2,000 teachers beaten and a number raped. In Matabeleland a year ago, the Chamber of Industries reported that 50 per cent of its members faced closure and that 200,000 jobs would be lost. Unemployment stands at over 50 per cent. In Mashonaland over 6,000 families have been displaced by violence. The business community has been threatened and intimidated everywhere. Zimbabwe has the human resources and the skills to make a success of a peaceful and orderly transfer of land to many potentially well-qualified Africans, with the good will and help of the commercial farmers, under arrangements which would have protected and advanced the economic well-being of the country. The will to do that with mutual respect exists. One man with his corrupt associates has instead created a black hole of starvation, violence, lawlessness, corruption and destruction.
	Until recently, the courts stood courageously between him and some of the worst excesses, but the police have ceased for nearly three years to enforce the law or to protect citizens from unbridled violence. The High Court, which ruled that the veterans should be removed from 600 farms, spoke in vain. The police refused to act. The judges have been replaced by political cronies who have declared the land grab to be legal. The veterans continue to murder and pillage unchecked.
	Despite massive intimidation, including murder, the MDC still won an impressive number of seats in the last election and has steadily stuck to the democratic way despite every provocation. The next election—if Mugabe does not find a way to move to martial law first—will be very difficult. Mugabe, not content with blowing up the one Zimbabwe newspaper that has steadfastly reported the truth, torturing journalists and now declaring that the foreign press, including the South African press, are terrorists, will, as on the last occasion, certainly try to prevent foreign observers seeing what is happening. He has already taken steps to abolish the overseas vote which could have allowed a disgruntled army to have a voice.
	We are about to see one of the few successful African countries, rich in resources and in skilled labour, go under, destabilising the whole area with terrible consequences, not only for its own people, who already have a serious AIDS problem to add to everything else, but for all the surrounding countries. Hundreds of thousands of displaced farm workers will walk the roads, as many are already doing and flood into Botswana, Mozambique and South Africa, into Malawi and Zambia.
	Our Prime Minister recently spoke of a new African initiative and appointed a Minister for Africa. We are fortunate to have that Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replying to this debate today. What are we doing about this catastrophe, which we have all seen coming for at least three years? When the first land seizure was announced in 1997, the IMF, the World Bank and the European Union—Mugabe was seeking money from them all—refused to proceed unless and until the rule of law was restored. So did we. In a tactic Mugabe was to use many times, up to and including the Abuja Conference this year, he left the negotiations to junior Ministers who were allowed to agree a reasonable action, and then went back on the bargain.
	In 1998, under UN auspices, the donor countries met in Harare and agreed to set up a technical support unit to be funded by the UNDP to work out a scheme with the Zimbabwe Government. Nothing was done. The UNDP came back with a fresh plan last year with the same outcome. At that conference, considerable resources were pledged by donors. The World Bank agreed to release frozen funds. Predictably, Mugabe, who already owed it 20 million US dollars, reneged on his agreement and the World Bank withdrew its support. The IMF actually gave him some money in 1999 but then withdrew all support with the breakdown of law and order. In March this year there were meetings with the EU Commission in Brussels, when the EU believed that dialogue would build a confidence and a consensus—those magic words—with Mugabe, and the Belgians and the French, who received him with much pomp and ceremony, tried to advance their particular interests in the Congo. Perhaps the Minister will be able to tell us whether those meetings and Mr Mbeki's presence at Feira produced any results.
	Mugabe, his Ministers and senior army commanders are making far too much money out of corrupt deals with President Kabila, on diamonds in particular, and incidentally on the destruction of the habitat by the cutting down of all the great forests, to have any intention of honouring the Lusaka Agreement and calling home an army which was said last year to be costing #1 million a day. That is because of the riches that he and his associates derive from the concessions that the army is protecting. Oryx Diamonds, according to the Helen Suzman Foundation, is only one of a large number of lucrative ZANU-PF investments in the Congo.
	It was unfortunate to say the least that the new Commonwealth Secretary-General's African adviser who, as a member of the Commonwealth Observer Group, was sent to monitor the elections last year, and who accompanied him to Harare to advise him on his first visit, should have been Moses Anafu, director of Oryx Diamonds. He was forced to resign from the observer group. But I wonder what his advice might have been.
	The EU on its most recent visit to Harare in the wake of the Abuja Agreement from which so much was hoped—another example of Mugabe's tactic of sending a compliant Minister while he himself was in Libya Xon holiday" and then reneging on the agreement—saw for itself what Mugabe is really like. It may at last be ready to take some real action against him.
	The Commonwealth has been a most bitter disappointment and has supinely failed to act. Although prepared to be tough with Pakistan and Fiji, it has done nothing about Zimbabwe. It was deeply unfortunate that the Brisbane Conference, when it might at last have been prepared to act, was cancelled. What is it now doing about the election? Time is running out. For the first year or two it was understandable that both it and we should believe that the best tactic was quiet diplomacy exercised through the African states, and Her Majesty's Government could argue, not unreasonably, that, as the former colonial power, open condemnation by us could only make things worse. But there is much that we could do and have not done.
	Despite the strong support, financial and in terms of bodyguards, that Mugabe can count on from Libya—and Gaddafi has unfortunately some standing with President Mbeki because of the ANC's past ties with the country—South Africa is at last moving to bring pressure to bear and recognising that Nelson Mandela was right to call Mugabe a tyrant who should be brought down. I hope that we are telling the South Africans in the strongest terms that, as the most powerful nation in the area, only they can avert destabilisation.
	For our part, we should be organising with the EU and with the United States, whose Congress has recently moved against Mugabe, the complete freezing of the assets of Mugabe and his ministers. He should not be able to go to Spain for an eye operation or to Libya on holiday, and we should be ensuring the maximum publicity for his outrageous acts. Terrorism does not flourish only in Afghanistan and we should not forget the wider implications for Africa of Gaddafi's growing influence in Zimbabwe and his ambition to lead an African union. That has connections with our other problems over terrorism which we should not ignore.
	Finally, it is outrageous that, if a recent Observer report is true, 150 Zimbabwe citizens, members of the Commonwealth, seeking asylum in this country should have been turned back from Heathrow last month—34 are in detention and two members of the MDC who were beaten and tortured have had their applications for asylum refused. At the very moment that we are debating a terrorism Bill, should we be refusing to help the victims of terror?
	We must make the people of Zimbabwe understand that we care about what is happening. We must be seen to do something. It is no longer enough to say that we must be ever so tactful and let someone else do it. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, on raising this extremely important topic. It may be that nothing we can say or do will influence events in Zimbabwe or deflect President Mugabe from moves to entrench his powers. It may be that the forces of the so-called war veterans, having been unleashed, cannot now be reined in. Before the parliamentary elections, I was told confidently not to worry about the land grabbing and squatting, that it was all simply an election ploy, and that as soon as the elections were over it would all be reversed. We know that that is not what happened. The situation continues. Sometimes it seems that the activities of the war veterans can be turned on and off like a tap. Their activities are not a consistent daily, or even weekly or monthly event. They are concentrated and take place for the maximum possible advantage.
	Having said that, if we talk or behave as though we were still the colonial power or the legatees of the old white settlers, we shall have absolutely no influence. Unpalatable though it is, it is necessary to recall that if we say the wrong thing, we simply exacerbate the situation in Zimbabwe; we do not ease the tensions. I should pay a passing reference to the recent history and problems of Zimbabwe. We must recall that Zimbabwe—wrongly, in the case of the governing party—still lives in a siege mentality. It has not yet emerged from the mentality of fighting a liberation war. One tragedy is that the two main political parties found themselves to be mainly—although not exclusively—tribally based. That has not made the situation easier.
	It is true that Zimbabwe suffered badly for its support of the African National Congress during the years of the apartheid regime. I regret to say that few voices were raised at that time to help Zimbabwe. It may well be—this is my passing view, as it were—that those in Zimbabwe are suffering from a kind of persecution complex because of all the praise lavished on South Africa following its independence. Zimbabwe in some ways feels itself to be the poor relation.
	That in no sense means that we should acquiesce in the undemocratic things happening in Zimbabwe or defend the current threat to democracy and thuggery. I would certainly not do that; I have far too much respect for Zimbabwe's people. I must say to the people and Government of Zimbabwe that, no matter how strong their feeling, frequently expressed, that the land was stolen in the old colonial days, this does not mean that they can neglect the realities of today's events. It is impossible to transfer land without compensation.
	In some respects—I do not wish to be too hard on the commercial farmers—I could almost accept the take-over of the land for the Zimbabwe people if the land was being put to proper use. That, as the noble Baroness said, is not so. There has been no real training programme for the people taking over the land. There has been no seed distribution, and no attempt made to realise any, let alone the full, potential of the land. That is disgraceful.
	All of us who are concerned with Zimbabwe want the best possible use of the land and the greatest possible prosperity for its people. We must double and redouble our efforts in the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations to try to ensure proper, structured land reform to bring the land into use.
	Yesterday, we learnt that President Mugabe has now said that the presidential election will take place in March—although he has not yet told us the date. It is essential that the date is set as soon as possible and that observers are allowed into the country to oversee the elections. President Mugabe blows hot and cold. Sometimes he agrees to having observers; sometimes he is against; sometimes he says maybe. Sometimes he says, XObservers, yes; monitors, no".
	It is not in Zimbabwe's interest to keep out observers. In fact, observers need to be in the country as soon as possible. It is all very well being an observer on election day or a few days beforehand. I have twice been an observer in South Africa and once in Uganda. In only one case was there any hostility. People were glad to see us there. I am not sure that if election observers were sent to this country for our elections, we would greet them with quite the same enthusiasm. It might help if we were prepared to do so. However, that is by the way.
	As I said, observers should be in the country as soon as possible. We must do everything that we can to ensure that the attempts being made to keep people off the electoral register are stopped. If we are to have a transparent, democratic election, everyone who is entitled to vote should be there.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, mentioned the courts. Until recently, they have been extremely independent and strong in support of democracy. A couple of days ago, I was glad to read that the challenge in the courts by the Movement for Democratic Change about who should be allowed to be registered had succeeded. I must admit that I do not know what has happened since, but I hope that the courts stand firm and hold the government to account. The rule of law must be upheld and there should be no barrier to registration during the elections.
	I listened carefully to what the noble Baroness said. She was somewhat scathing about dialogue—perhaps I am being too harsh on her; I hope that she will not take this amiss—suggesting that it had achieved nothing. I certainly share her disappointment that the most recent Commonwealth agreement appears not to be holding up. I am also disappointed that the recent ministerial visit to Zimbabwe, in which my noble friend Lady Amos took part, has again not found favour with the Mugabe regime. As the noble Baroness said, it is difficult when we get conflicting responses from government ministers on the one hand and from President Mugabe on the other. We must have clarity and know who is responsible.
	I sometimes wonder whether President Mugabe understands or is aware of the damage being done to his country and to the region. For Zimbabwe to be importing food—to be crying out for food aid—is astonishing. It beggars belief that a country that used to export maize in huge quantities is now dependent on outside grain to prevent famine. We must be careful what we say, but I say that President Mugabe should withdraw his statement that non-governmental organisations will not be allowed to supervise food aid distribution. Food aid should not be used as a political weapon, and he should lift his threat of an embargo.
	The threat to the region is serious. It is bad enough that Zimbabwe is being destabilised and faces a severe future. But the whole region of southern Africa is being destabilised by President Mugabe. Many of us in this House—including, I am sure, the noble Baroness—are friends of Zimbabwe. For a number of years I was chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement. There were many of us fighting for Zimbabwe's freedom. We certainly did not fight for it on the basis that the situation would be the same as under the previous regime.
	Perhaps I may allow myself one particularly barbed comment. It is ironic that many of the actions of President Mugabe have been carried out under the old legislation of the Smith regime, left on the statute book by the government who negotiated Zimbabwe's independence. That proved a monumental error.
	I wish Zimbabwe well, as I am sure does everyone. However, if President Mugabe believes that election by non-transparent means will help his people, he is wrong. If he is to be elected, he must be elected in a clear, transparent, democratic election. Everyone in this House and outside wants to see that happen.

Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park, for initiating the debate. As one who worked in Zimbabwe for many years, she spoke with a great deal of knowledge.
	The situation in Zimbabwe is depressing because there appear to be no bright spots to highlight. We on these Benches have always tried to be measured in our response so as not to provide ammunition for a government mouthpiece such as the Herald or to enable it to quote our words and accuse us of aggravating the situation. However, the situation is so bleak that there is no point in doing otherwise than highlighting how dire it is.
	The fact that Zimbabwe is facing economic collapse cannot be ignored. The situation faced by the white farmers has economic implications. They farm the commercial farms, which are the source of revenue and hard currency. Without that source of hard currency, which is being destroyed for short-term political ends, the economy is in dire straits.
	Although we often raise the issue of white farmers, a much larger and hard-hit group, which we should never forget, is the farm workers. During the past 18 months, hundreds of thousands of them have been displaced and some have been murdered by the forces supporting the government because they supported the MDC.
	Land reform cannot be ignored. It is not an easy issue, but I believe that one of the defects of the Lancaster House agreement was that land redistribution was not then dealt with fundamentally. However, much of the land redistribution is being done purely for political ends.
	Land distribution is also contributing to the massive food crisis that is affecting the country. Zimbabwe should be one of the richest agricultural countries in Africa. I worked on a farm there and I know of the incredible ability of the soil to grow crops. However, there is a disparity between the rich farmland of Msonediland and the less fertile regions of Bulawayo to the south.
	The food crisis—and the Government of Zimbabwe have called for 80 million dollars to redress it—is uneven in its effect. The fact that the government want to control the distribution of food, and perhaps in the run-up to an election claim the credit for providing food, is totally reprehensible and unsupportable.
	The political unrest which is growing within the country is difficult to understand in a mature democracy. As a member of the opposition, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for those people who are prepared to stand up for their political views, knowing that many of their colleagues and friends have been killed for holding those views. The government's continued use of violence, which is growing, shows their desperation.
	That is also shown in the collapse of the rule of law. In that respect, the last bastion in Zimbabwe seemed to be the brave stance taken by the supreme court. However, as that body has been packed with government sympathisers it is unlikely that the supreme court will deny the government's wishes in the future.
	In order to prepare for the debate I pulled out the press cuttings for the past month. They are a thick tome and read like a tragedy. Many people consider the elections the country's salvation, as they were in Malawi. However, laws are being changed and such great damage is being done to civil society that an enormous amount of effort will be required after the elections to redress that; and that is provided that the elections bring about a government with a representative mandate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, mentioned his monitoring experience. I, too, have had monitoring experience in South Africa, Tanzania and Malawi. One of the questions which monitors always ask of themselves is whether they are rubber-stamping the process. The claim of Xfree and fair" elections should never be given as a reliable guide, a Xrubber stamp", to an election team. The problem goes back to the formulation of the register. XFree and fair" cannot be the case when, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, those who have been displaced have been denied access to the electoral register and those between 18 and 30 have been denied the right to vote. Therefore, even if an election takes place under the present system, the question of whether it will be free or fair might well already have been answered.
	Others in the region are beginning to question whether Mr Mugabe's stance is sustainable. Although many believe that the criticism by Mr Mbeke, South Africa's president, of what is going on in Zimbabwe has been a long time coming, I was pleased to hear it.
	I have only two questions to ask the Minister today. First, have the Government reassessed their position? All the issues to which I have referred illustrate that asylum seekers coming from Zimbabwe have real cause for concern about being returned. Do the Government intend to review their policy considering that two supporters of the MDC who it is believed may face certain death if they return have had their asylum applications refused?
	It is too tempting to ask the Minister what the Government intend to do to solve the problems in another country and to expect her to come forward with all the answers. I do not expect that. The problems that have been caused in Zimbabwe during the past few years must be addressed by the people of Zimbabwe. It is their prerogative. However, there are issues which friends of Zimbabwe must examine, which leads me to my second question. The American Congress has passed a Bill for smart sanctions. I believe that the British Government will act within the remit of the CHOGM in March, but should there not be an emergency CHOGM before then? Should not the Government act to institute smart sanctions and perhaps freeze the assets of members of the Government of Zimbabwe?

The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for giving your Lordships' House an opportunity to debate the situation in Zimbabwe. The three episcopal areas in my own diocese are twinned with three of the four dioceses in Zimbabwe. We have a longstanding interest in the life of the people of that land.
	It must be said that injustice and oppression are not totally new creations of the Mugabe government. In the 1960s and 1970s I was a missionary in the neighbouring country of Zambia during the days of the Smith regime's UDI. I still blush at some of the letters and statements of the white bishops and church leaders of Rhodesia in those days. For example, the then Bishop of Mashonaland wrote a letter to The Times in December 1976 arguing against democracy for the African people of Rhodesia. He warned that independence would mean the creation of a Marxist state, the consequent loss of the Cape sea routes, the isolation of South Africa and Britain becoming a colony of Russia.
	In the context of such wild and exaggerated rhetoric, the Independence Address of Robert Mugabe seemed wise, measured and civilised. Twenty years ago, as the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, on its first day of independence he made a particularly encouraging speech on reconciliation, during which he said that:
	XWe are called to be constructive, progressive and for ever forward looking, for we cannot afford to be people of yesterday, backward looking, retrogressive and destructive. If yesterday I fought you as an enemy, today you become a friend and ally. If yesterday you hated me, today you cannot avoid the love that binds you to me and me to you".
	He went on to say:
	XIt could never be a correct justification that because the whites oppressed us yesterday, when they had power, the blacks must oppress them today because we have power. An evil remains an evil, whether practised by white against black or by black against white".
	Those were fine words, but sadly the love binding together the people of Zimbabwe now seems to be fraying. We see injustices multiplying, not only black against white, but also black against black. The hoped-for democratic age has not yet materialised, while violence, fear and intimidation surround the run-up to next year's presidential elections. It does not give one confidence that, in seeking re-election, President Mugabe is not allowing international observers to monitor the polls.
	Of course the issue of land reform bedevils the situation. Those difficulties were highlighted by the Anglican Zimbabwean bishops in their statement made in June of this year. Land reform, they truthfully pointed out, was essential, but it must be lawful. Who could disagree? But again, we should not forget history. From 1890 the land was taken by white invaders and settlers, often at gunpoint. In the 1930s, those white settlers divided the land, often earmarking the best arable land for the whites. It is true that generations of such settlers worked long and hard to make the land some of the most productive on earth. They made many sacrifices to secure a better future for themselves and their children. Of course they then wanted to hang on to what they had created, or at least they wanted to be well compensated for their loss.
	At the end of UDI, the constitution agreements with Britain ensured that their land possession would be legal. But the fact is that, until recently, less than 1 per cent of the population owned 70 per cent of the land. No African government, however benign, could allow that situation to remain indefinitely.
	Sadly, over recent years the redistribution of land has not been accomplished with the peace and order associated with lawfulness. It has been accompanied by murder and violence, with the police often turning a blind eye. But yet again, it must not be thought that such violence has suddenly been invented. A report from March 1977 published in the Sunday Times tells of a white farmer beating to death a black labourer. He unleashed four blows to the face, a kick to the head and two kicks to the chest after the 65 year-old labourer had planted maize incorrectly. The magistrate said that he did not consider that the assault itself was a serious one, fined the farmer 300 dollars and detained him in gaol for two months.
	Let us take the words of the then new president at the first Independence Day seriously and seek to be,
	Xconstructive, progressive and for ever forward looking".
	The news surrounding land reform is not all dire. Yesterday, in preparation for this debate in your Lordships' House, I received a fax from one of our local Zimbabwean bishops. He reports that the resettlement programme has been assisted by a team made up of commercial farmers and government officials called the Zimbabwe Joint Resettlement Initiative. It has been set up to resolve the land question amicably and without contesting compulsory acquisition in court. The Churches are playing their part in trying to defuse the situation by maintaining a dialogue with the government, with war veterans and with the traditional chiefs. In July an open meeting with government Ministers took place at Victoria Falls, with a second meeting held in November involving war veterans. Even though the war veterans would not accept the blame for the violence on the farms, they committed themselves to ensuring that peace would prevail in the future.
	But between those meetings the spate of abductions and the murder of two war veteran leaders has brought instability to Bulawayo. The Church was very vocal in condemning those crimes and the suspected perpetrators, members of the opposition party, were quickly arrested. Even that was a cause for disagreement, for it was claimed that no such swift action had been taken by the police when members of the opposition party had been the victims of such attacks.
	The third of the Churches' meetings regarding land reform is due to begin tomorrow. It is to be held in the rural areas where much of the violence and intimidation has taken place, and where the traditional chiefs still exercise a great deal of authority. In the planned meeting, the Churches hope to encourage and support this force for stability in a changing land in unstable times.
	I share those positive actions with the House because, as the noble Baroness indicated in her contribution, in many other ways the situation is dire and tragic stories abound. To cite only one example, the future of 6,000 orphans among farm workers hangs in the balance. The organisation formed to care for them has depended on a wide network of solidarity among farm labourers, farmers, Churches, NGOs, volunteers and agri-industrial corporate support. Farm invasions have destroyed that caring and financial net.
	As we have heard, over the weekend there were press reports that the Zimbabwean Government are restricting the distribution of food aid to their own agencies. If that is the case, it will be extremely serious for the work of the Churches and the other aid agencies who work in good times and bad to bring help and healing to the most vulnerable. But I am pleased to tell the House that Christian Aid workers have reported that, until now, their activities have certainly not been curtailed.
	It cannot be denied that the country which used to be called the bread-basket of Africa is in a bad way. The economy has collapsed, unemployment is universal, insurance companies have stopped insuring goods in transit through Zimbabwe, and tourism has collapsed as safari lodges are invaded and wildlife poaching mounts. Inflation is rife. Earlier this year one of my brother bishops in Zimbabwe reported a 70 per cent increase overnight in bus fares. More and more people are going hungry. The harvest due next month will be poor and will be made even poorer as inflation and lack of foreign exchange prevents the purchase of fertilisers. There is no money for educational supplies and, of serious concern, there is no money for drugs. Few families have not been touched in some way by HIV/AIDS and the purchase of drugs to slow the onslaught of illness is almost impossible.
	It is difficult to be optimistic about developments in the short term as a deeply unpopular government struggles to hold on to power. There is a limit to what can be done by outside agencies, in particular by the British Government as a symbol of the previous colonial regime. But, along with other noble Lords, I shall be interested to hear from the Minister what help the British Government might offer to ease this serious situation.
	The Zimbabwean Church remembers each August its first martyr, who died at the hands of his countrymen, in part as a result of his attempt to plant the church among his own people. The blood of that martyr proved to be the fruitful seed of the church. In politics as in religion, in the last resort the future of Zimbabwe lies with the Zimbabwean people themselves. In the medium to long term there is much cause for hope. The land is naturally productive and the peoples of Zimbabwe, of whatever race or tribe, are sensitive and hardworking. Zimbabwe will see better days, and the Churches will be doing all that they can to ensure that those days come soon.

The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I am happy to declare an interest as one of your Lordships who has family and many friends in Zimbabwe. What I say today will reflect my own thoughts—they are not necessarily theirs—and it will be said with a love for Zimbabwe and all its people.
	I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Park for introducing the debate. She encapsulated the problems very well in what she said. I am grateful, too, to the right reverend Prelate for reminding us of the original words of President Mugabe, upon which he has now reneged.
	The latest matter on which he has reneged is the Abuja Agreement. I hope that the Minister will confirm that, as far as our Government are concerned, the Abuja Agreement is dead and that we are no longer trying to hang on to something that was clearly used by President Mugabe as a ruse for delayed action and for carrying on and intensifying what was going on before. There is no doubt that the intimidation is worse and that the level of fear, of both blacks and whites, is at a higher level than it was before Abuja.
	Over the past months, I have sent various e-mails to the Minister's office to ensure that she was aware of some the events happening in Zimbabwe. Sadly, when I have requested replies, they have not necessarily been forthcoming. I hope that today she will be able to put us firmly in the picture.
	One of the great problems with Zimbabwe is obtaining accurate information; it is at a premium. If you read some of the comments of the Zimbabwean Foreign Minister, Mr Stan Mudenge, and compare them with what you read elsewhere, you would believe that he lived on a different planet. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, wondered whether President Mugabe was aware of the damage that he is causing to his country. Most certainly he is—but he does not care.
	President Mugabe is not the only person who gives cause for concern. It is not only a question of getting rid of President Mugabe but of the whole of the ZANU-PF elite. If we get rid of President Mugabe, there will be four or five others ready to step into his shoes, with exactly the same policies, exactly the same terrorism of the blacks and exactly the same downward spiral that we have witnessed.
	Like my noble friend Lady Park, I shall start with farming, because that is a tragic situation. In the year 1999-00, 850,000 tonnes of maize were grown; next year there is expected to be a maximum crop of 255,000 tonnes. Cotton is down from 34,000 tonnes last year to 12,000 tonnes this year. Planting is down 75 per cent within the past two years. Since January 2001, nearly a quarter of a million cattle have been sold and not replaced.
	That has been compounded more recently because of President Mugabe's wonderful resettlement programme. The blacks have now introduced their cattle into areas where there are wild buffalo; the wild buffalo carry foot and mouth; the cattle now have foot and mouth and the export of beef from Zimbabwe has had to be stopped. There is a limited supply, but one of the good areas through which foreign exchange could get into Zimbabwe has been closed off through its own stupid internal policies.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, referred to some of the good farming land in Zimbabwe, but there is some rotten, awful farming land which the white farmers are farming and which is being resettled at the moment. Here we will see history repeating itself. We saw it in Tanzania, where unprofitable farming land was resettled. I know one person who farmed quite a chunk of Tanzania. The land was resettled with 200 families—and there is now not one person on that land. Exactly the same will apply in Zimbabwe.
	It is sad that young farmers, of all nationalities, are leaving Zimbabwe at an unprecedented rate. Already there is famine in parts of the country—but, in that time honoured phrase, you have not seen anything yet. Next year will see a dramatic increase in famine. We will see horrible pictures on our television screens and there will be a rush to try to help. If that rush starts before the presidential election, the only person who will get credit will be Mr Mugabe.
	I hope that the Government will take a strong line on this issue. Any aid, maize, or whatever foodstuffs are needed, going into Zimbabwe should not go through the Zimbabwean Government but through the NGOs and aid agencies—and it should be seen to go through them. Otherwise, the President will use it entirely for his own advantage and intimidation.
	I turn now to tourism, one of Zimbabwe's main potential opportunities. In 1999, there were 1.4 million visitors; there were less than a quarter of that last year. By March of this year, the industry had lost 5,000 jobs in the previous 12 months; 100 tour operators had closed down; and Qantas and Lufthansa airlines had left Zimbabwe because of a lack of people wanting to go there. Those policies do not help the local people of Zimbabwe; they put them out of work.
	As well as going to view the magical scenery of Zimbabwe, one goes to look at the wildlife. I raised the issue of wildlife in our previous debate on Zimbabwe, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, replied. Let us look at what is happening in the private reserves. In the Save Valley reserve—one of the biggest in the world, with 320,000 hectares of land—more than 3,000 animals have been lost through illicit poaching in the 12 months to June this year. This area comprises 20 landowners, 22 local communities and five district councils. It was the epitome of an African solution to an African problem, but it is now failing.
	There has been rampant poaching—not through the organised gangs that we saw in the early 1990s, which were sponsored by outside nations and by the government, but through people trying to get some meat to eat. The wildlife lost includes wild dog, elephant, lion, sable, eland, giraffe, kudu—and, on that reserve, 36 out of the 70 rhino are missing. It is a tragic story. The very biodiversity of that part of Africa is now at stake. There have been huge losses. The reserve employs 1,200 unskilled workers, and they, too, are suffering as a result of the policies.
	The same can be said of the reserves in the Midlands and Bubiana. Losses have been caused by poaching and indiscriminate fires, and, where the wildlife has not been killed, much of it has moved on to areas outside the reserves. Sadly, in the national parks, too, there is an increasing amount of poaching.
	As I said, obtaining accurate information has been difficult. I hope that the Minister has seen the report in July this year from the Zimbabwe Network for Informal Settlement Action. From a sample taken in central Mashonaland, of the 5,689 farm workers estimated to have lost their jobs, only 1,593 had been resettled. The rest were internal migrants. It is estimated that there are now some 3 million internal displaced refugees within Zimbabwe. None of those people will be allowed to vote in the coming presidential election.
	Worse than that is the consequential effect on the children of farm workers in the area. The supplementary feeding of under-fives has decreased by 56 per cent. Pre-school activities have stopped entirely for 36 per cent of the farm workers' children. The dispensing of medicines has ceased at 19 per cent of farms; and farm health workers are no longer being paid on 15 per cent of farms. This is tragic; the very core and future of Zimbabwe are not being looked after. The orphans who were once looked after by those families have suffered more than others.
	What action should we now take? I take a much stronger view than some other speakers. The time for constructive engagement is over. The European Union should implement smart sanctions as soon as possible—as the Americans have done. All the travel of the Zanu PF elite and their families and henchmen should be stopped, including that of some whites who are supplying arms to the regime. The daughter of a friend of mine was at a mixed school in Zimbabwe. Not one of her black friends is in Zimbabwe at the moment. If their travel were stopped, it would bring it home to their parents just what a mess they are making of the country.
	We ought to freeze the assets of all ZANU-PF elite and the Zimbabwean Government. At the same time, we must get over the message that the sanctions are not targeted at the Zimbabwean people but at the ruling government. The Americans are already close to losing a trick. I hear that they are not winning this important propaganda war. I hope that we shall cease to provide aid for resettlement and trim our aid programme heavily. I hope that, at the same time, we shall offer a new, enhanced aid programme for the future when certain conditions are met and the elite have gone.
	I hope that President Mbeki of South Africa will pass the test that he has set himself of influencing Zimbabwe. The country has lost 25 million dollars in the recent past, thanks to Zimbabwe. When we were children, we used to play a game called Xbeggar my neighbour". President Mugabe is doing that with serious money to all the surrounding states.
	I very much hope that the Government, together with the other European Union countries, will take firm action now. Unless that happens, they will continue to be led by the nose, as they have been over the past year, and at the end of the day President Mugabe will still be laughing at the European Union. I hope that that does not happen.

Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for introducing this topical debate. Hardly a day goes by without more revelations of human rights violations and of the increasingly dire social, political and economic crisis in Zimbabwe. I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put his name on the list of speakers. We look forward to hearing his comments.
	This subject has been raised many times in this house, particularly at Question Time by the noble Lord, Lord Blaker. The Minister for Africa has consistently given assurances that pressure will be brought to bear—through Britain's membership of the Commonwealth and through the European Union—on Robert Mugabe to end the increasing cycle of devastation in his country.
	However, as the Foreign Secretary recently conceded in another place, the Abuja accord has effectively broken down. Moreover, all the assurances given by the Zimbabwean Government, and by Mugabe himself, have proved to be false dawns.
	Whatever measures Her Majesty's Government have taken and continue to take, my experience of having lived most of my life in southern Africa leads me to suggest that African problems require African solutions. I know that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, has reservations about that but certainly so far as concerns the present crisis, I believe that South Africa holds the key to resolving the impasse.
	We can pontificate as much as we like in this House, but the relationship that Mr Mugabe has with Thabo Mbeki is a very long and special one. It is encouraging that at long last he is changing his views on the country. Even more so, pressure needs to be brought to bear through SADC. Essentially, it is Zimbabwe's southern African neighbours who have the ability to get to the heart of Mr Mugabe—essentially we are talking about one man. When she replies to the debate, will the Minister outline what measures Her Majesty's Government have been taking to encourage President Thabo Mbeki to exert much-needed pressure on his northern neighbour?
	South Africa has been placed in an awkward predicament. Thabo Mbeki has tried in vain for several years to exert diplomatic pressure on Zimbabwe through maintaining friendly relations with his old friend and comrade, Robert Mugabe. However, this kid gloves strategy has effectively back- fired on the South African economy, and more recently on the South African rand, which has fallen dramatically. I am not saying that that is entirely the result of the crisis in Zimbabwe, but the crisis has certainly had a knock-on effect on the economies of the entire region.
	I was therefore encouraged to note President Mbeki's remarks last weekend, when he publicly acknowledged that Mugabe's policies have destroyed southern Africa's second largest economy and that the country's presidential election, scheduled for March next year, is unlikely to be free and fair. Such words do not come easily from Thabo Mbeki. He appears to have decided that the most effective means of bringing pressure to bear on his old friend Mugabe is to work through SADC.
	It has been mooted that South Africa could effectively bring the Zimbabwe Government to their knees by imposing economic sanctions, through interrupting the supplies of electricity and maize, as well as the credit lines it has been giving to the Zimbabwe Central Bank and various public enterprises. However, Pretoria has repeatedly stated that sanctions are not an option. Diplomacy and leadership through SADC remain the strongest weapons at President Mbeki's disposal.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, has eloquently outlined the gravity of the current situation in Zimbabwe. I totally agree with her remark that we are currently experiencing the murder of a once prosperous country. That is true. The sad reality, however, is that this is not just a crisis about the seizure of more than 5,000 white-owned farms. Most speakers would agree that land reform in Zimbabwe is necessary—but necessary only so long as it is fair, and only so long as it is done in an orderly fashion. The real crisis lies in the devastating effect that this policy has had on millions of poor Zimbabweans. Agricultural production has slumped alarmingly and the country, which has historically enjoyed food surpluses, now faces the unthinkable prospect of severe famine.
	The harsh statistics speak for themselves. In 1980, one Zimbabwe dollar was equal to #1. Now, #1 buys more than 300 Zimbabwe dollars. If we look back 10 years to 1990, Zimbabwe's per capita annual income was 920 US dollars. That figure has now fallen to below 530 US dollars. The noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned an unemployment figure of 50 per cent. I understand that at present it is nearer 60 per cent. With more than 25 per cent of working-age adults HIV positive, the outlook could hardly be bleaker.
	Apart from supporting South Africa in the initiatives through SADC, have Her Majesty's Government adopted the imposition of smart sanctions on Zimbabwe similar to those passed recently by the US House of Representatives in the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Bill? Those penalties would involve travel bans on Mugabe, his cabinet and senior ZANU-PF officials. Most importantly, it would impose a freeze on the assets of Robert Mugabe and his henchmen.
	We have debated this ongoing crisis for long enough. Time is running out for the people of Zimbabwe. Her Majesty's Government need to offer unconditional support to the SADC initiatives and, together with our partners in the European Union and the Commonwealth, ensure that the forthcoming presidential election is as free and fair as possible. We live in hope.

Lord Brett: My Lords, it is normal to start a speech by congratulating the person who has initiated the debate. I question whether I want to thank the noble Baroness for introducing the subject. The debate has been as I imagined. I am the seventh speaker and I agree with every word of the previous speakers. Indeed I suspect that I shall agree with all who follow. However, before deciding whether to participate in the debate, I asked myself a number of questions. Will I gain new knowledge about Zimbabwe? Will I hear new initiatives from the UK Government? Will the outcome of the debate influence President Mugabe? I thought that all three points would be answered in the negative.
	I declare an interest. I am a personal friend of Morgan Tsvangirai and for the past 10 years have served with Gibson Sibanda, parliamentary leader of the MDC on the ILO governing body. I have twice spoken at MDC meetings in London and chaired a rally in which Morgan Tsvangirai took part. However, I am uneasy about the righteousness expressed by some speakers, and the impotence felt by the same people, who might find themselves named within a few days by the Herald as the justification for what President Mugabe seeks to do.
	I sought some positive aspects of the debate. I was challenged by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, who said that it was all gloom and asked whether there is any brightness. I believe that there is. Eighteen months ago I went to Zimbabwe. I wrote a report, partly on behalf of the ILO, which I circulated to Her Majesty's Government and a number of noble Lords who have an interest in that country. Alas, everything that I had forecast from talking to bankers, industrialists, farmers and trades unionists has come about, except that there is not yet civil unrest to the degree that I forecast, although that is partly through the intimidation of the Government of Zimbabwe.
	Morgan Tsvangirai and Gibson Sibanda were leaders of the Zimbabwe Congress of Trade Unions. In the one-party state which has existed for a number of years they have become more and more the only democratic organisation where dissenting voices can be heard in debate. As in many developed and developing countries, trade unionists have become the voice of the masses in every sense of the word. I take comfort from two facts. First, when I asked members of the World Bank, the IMF, banks and farmers, XIf the Mugabe regime were to be removed, democratically or by whatever means, how long would it take for the economy of Zimbabwe to recover?", a number of people said that it would be not more than three years because the fundamentals in Zimbabwe are so strong. With good governance, a democratic government and the rule of law, it could recover quickly.
	My second reason for optimism is that Zimbabwe is but four months away from an election. I know and have heard of the ongoing intimidation. I have great admiration for Morgan, Gibson and their colleagues who face that intimidation. They are optimistic that if the rigging of the election can be minimised, the voice of the Zimbabwe people will render their verdict on President Mugabe.
	While noble Lords may be guilty of rational thought, I do not believe that President Mugabe is involved in rational thinking. He seems to have some intellectual belief that because Morgan Tsvangirai does not have seven degrees and Gibson Sibanda was a railway engine driver they are in some way incapable of running the country. The right reverend Prelate referred to the speech that he made on the opening of the Mugabe regime. It demonstrates the journey the president has taken from his past to present position.
	I disagree with only one aspect of the eloquent speech of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I do not believe that a phalanx of ZANU-PF would be prepared to carry on the fight if President Mugabe were to fall under a Madrid taxi or find himself out at the election. A number of people will certainly fight to hold on to those things that they have acquired. Some months ago, the MDC dismissed the rumours of a coup and Morgan Tsvangirai remains confident that the senior echelons in the armed forces will obey the instructions of a democratically elected government. From talking to people within ZANU-PF—by no means at the lowest level—I know that there are those in that organisation who would want to find a solution. They have sought a solution which would remove President Mugabe with honour, security and a pension. That has been rejected. As with so many states, whether eastern European or others—we remember Ceausescu—when the head is removed what appears to be a solid phalanx falls quickly. I have some optimism in that direction.
	Therefore, the question is how we can ensure that the elections are free and fair. President Mugabe has blown hot and cold about monitors. I understand that his position today is yes to Commonwealth observers; no to EU observers; no to white observers; and yes to Indian, Asian and African observers. It may be different tomorrow. However, he accepts, therefore, the principle of an observer presence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about the need for an African solution to an African problem. I am far less critical of the Government of South Africa than some speakers. I believe that determined efforts have been made privately. Contacts have been retained between the trade unions in South Africa and those in Zimbabwe and between the ANC and the political parties in Zimbabwe. At the diplomatic level, the South African Government have made efforts—they may be somewhat greater than we can acknowledge publicly—but the fact of life is that all those efforts have not succeeded.
	In this week of Human Rights Day, Morgan Tsvangirai congratulated the president of South Africa on his latest statement. It is one to be grasped. How do we ensure that we have fair elections? That is a positive note. I am not sure whether smart sanctions imposed before or after an election are crucial. However, calling for sanctions in this Chamber will be used by President Mugabe as an argument that such sanctions are not being brought: because the world at large sees his regime for what it is: as a colonial fight in which, he pretends, the British Government and British people are involved.
	We have to travel with a little caution if only because the journey to democracy could be quite short. I may be accused of being hopelessly naive; that my knowledge is superficial; and that the situation is far more grave. However, my last ray of optimism is that my sources are Morgan Tsvangirai, Gibson Sibanda and the MDC. While they raise the alarm bells and want us to do everything we can to ensure free and fair elections, they are prepared to go into those elections and believe that they can be won. We owe it to them to take that optimistic view. I think that the UK Government have handled a very difficult situation as well as they can. We start from the premise that anything we say can be counter-productive. That it why I very much agree with my noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside that we have to be careful about exacerbating the situation, if only because it could improve the chances of President Mugabe remaining in power, however rigged are the elections. I do not expect the Minister to do anything other than agree with the sentiments expressed by noble Lords and offer the continuation of the present policy. I think that the answer lies with SADC, the EU and the presidents of that region of Africa saying to Mugabe that the elections that take place in March must be seen by Africa to be free and fair. That is possibly the only pressure to which President Mugabe will respond.

Lord Blaker: I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on securing this important and useful debate.
	The most important thing for Zimbabwe in the coming months is that the elections should be free and fair. As the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, said, the observers—I hope that there will be observers—must be in position well before the elections take place. We have seen in the past that intimidation occurs in the period before elections. My impression is that Mr Mugabe has refused to agree to foreign observers. I should be interested to learn from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, when she replies to the debate, whether that is correct. The reporting on Zimbabwe has not been good recently, partly because the media are focused on Afghanistan and partly because Mr Mugabe has banned all foreign reporters in Zimbabwe.
	When the European Union delegation of Mr Michel, the Foreign Minister of Belgium, Mr Solana and Chris Patten saw Mr Mugabe three weeks ago, Mr Mugabe stormed out of the meeting and refused to have observers from the European Union. Mr Michel was reported to have said after that meeting that the European Union would not recognise the elections. I was encouraged by that remark. Whether he really meant it, I am not sure, but at least it showed that there are strong feelings about the matter.
	I want to ask the Minister about the position of SADC. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that SADC has a key role. There was a call by Mr Mbeki not long ago for SADC to ensure that the elections are free and fair. SADC has put forward detailed and good proposals for the conduct of elections in the 14 member countries of that organisation. I shall not go into detail but mention only the interesting proposal that transparent ballot boxes should be provided, presumably to prevent the stuffing of ballot boxes before election day. SADC emphasises the importance of election observers before and after the elections, so I should be grateful if the Minister will say something about SADC's position on the issue of observers. It is important that SADC should play its part but also that there should be other observers from other organisations.
	It is important, too, that the world should be prepared to do something if the elections are not free and fair. I emphasise the word Xdo" as opposed to Xsay". So far there has been much talk, representations and concern expressed, but not much has been done. It is interesting that when the parliamentary elections took place last year, all the observers' reports were hostile, adverse and critical, but nothing whatever was done. These elections could be an important turning point. If Mr Mugabe wins and the world stands by and does nothing, the vertiginous descent into chaos will accelerate. Zimbabwe will become even more in hock to Mr Gadaffi, to whom the noble Baroness, Lady Park, referred. If the elections are not free and fair and Mr Mugabe wins, have the Government considered what they will do then? It is much better that we should think out these matters before the elections occur, rather than have confused consultations with all our friends and allies after the elections.
	Before the parliamentary elections, which Mr Mugabe Xwon", intimidation was fierce. It is now being stepped up again and is focused on the media, in particular. The printing press of the principal independent newspaper was blown up, local editors and journalists have been beaten up and arrested on spurious charges and foreign journalists have been banned. One can be sent to prison for criticising the president. The Zimbabwe Government have accused the BBC of stirring up revolt by its foreign language programmes and the headquarters of the MDC have been burnt.
	I join the noble Lord, Lord Brett, in paying tribute to the MDC and to its leader, Mr Tsvangirai, in particular. I have great admiration for him and his organisation. The MDC refuses to respond to violence with violence; it is committed to democracy and peaceful change. And it is setting an example that is very important for Africa. It is possible that the MDC will win even if Mr Mugabe does his worst. It has had good results in recent mayoral contests. It leads in the opinion polls, although they may not be accurate as they are taken mostly in the towns where the MDC is stronger because of Mugabe's intimidation in the countryside.
	Have Her Majesty's Government, the European Union or the Commonwealth considered the position if the MDC wins? It is possible that Mr Mugabe might refuse to recognise the result and imprison the MDC leaders. That happened in a similar situation in Burma, and there the situation is still the same many years later. What would the Government or the EU do? Let us think about it now, rather than after the event.
	What is anyone doing now about stopping the descent into disaster? I understand the Government's reservations about the United Kingdom acting alone, which is to be avoided if possible, as we are the ex-colonial power. But should we not be doing more than issuing statements of concern and making verbal representations? The Abuja agreement has been signed, but, as has been said, that is now a dead letter as it was ignored by Mr Mugabe. What could the Government do? Like other noble Lords, I, too, refer to the resolution passed by the Congress of the United States to freeze foreign assets of Mr Mugabe and his cronies and to restrict their foreign travel. Why cannot the same be done by the EU? If the assets of bin Laden can be traced and frozen, so can those of Mr Mugabe and his henchmen.
	I agree that the actions of the Commonwealth have been disappointing; so too have the statements of the Secretary- General of the Commonwealth. He recently warned Pakistan's rulers that there were limits to the tolerance of the world community in accepting their slow return to democracy. The Government of Pakistan have undertaken to have elections in October next year. I do not recall Mr McKinnon saying anything critical to, or about, the Government of Zimbabwe. He has certainly not said anything about their destruction of democracy.
	I want to refer to one or two of the answers recently given by the Minister. I must express my sympathy to the noble Baroness for the fact that she suffered a harangue, which lasted 90 minutes, from Mr Mugabe a few weeks ago. On the XToday" programme on 21st November when questioned about international observers, she said that the question of free and fair elections is a matter for the Government of Zimbabwe to resolve. We all know that if that is the case the elections will not be free and fair.
	In answer to a parliamentary Question from me on 6th November, the Minister said:
	Xperhaps I should remind the House that Zimbabwe is an independent country".
	She later added:
	Xwe cannot force them to have international election observers".—[Official Report, 6/11/01; cols. 127-28.]
	But could we not put some pressure on the Government of Zimbabwe? Austria is an independent country, but we intervened in its affairs. Serbia, Sierra Leone and Afghanistan are also independent, but we have intervened in all of them. The doctrine is evolving that intervention in an independent country is permissible to avert a humanitarian catastrophe. In a document issued in the summer, the Government favoured the further evolution of that doctrine. Do we not face a humanitarian catastrophe in Zimbabwe? Could not the European Union at least follow the example of the United States Congress?

Lord Avebury: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, that the election next March will be a turning point. We should consider the circumstances in which it is to take place and whether it is possible to say, even at this stage, whether the conditions exist in which a free and fair election might theoretically be held.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, has already reminded us of the widespread violence and intimidation before the parliamentary elections. At least 30 MDC members were killed during the June parliamentary campaign and there has been a relentless onslaught on MDC leaders and activists since then. When Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, the leader of the opposition, was campaigning at a by-election recently, a group of more than 100 ZANU-PF youth supporters attacked his convoy and five MDC supporters were seriously injured. At another by-election, ZANU-PF thugs set fire to the house of an MDC official and assaulted his pregnant wife as she fled from the fire. At the Chikomba by-election on 14th September, Mr Felix Mazava, a headmaster of a primary school, was abducted and beaten to death, allegedly by ZANU-PF supporters.
	Only the day before yesterday, it was reported that the body of 29 year-old Augustus Chacha, who was kidnapped by suspected ZANU-PF supporters from his home in Shurugwi on Saturday, was found dumped in a dam a kilometre from his home. He had been an active supporter of the MDC in the nearby village of Gonye before he moved to Shurugwi in August this year because of political violence around his previous home.
	The police have not investigated any of those incidents of violence against MDC supporters. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark said, when any member of ZANU-PF or the war veterans is attacked or murdered, the full armoury of the state is deployed against the nearest MDC target. The case of Cain Nkala, a leading ZANU-PF activist in Bulawayo, has already been mentioned. Following his murder, 14 MDC supporters were arrested and at his funeral, President Robert Mugabe accused the MDC of being a terrorist organisation. Two suspects, Mr Khentani Sibanda and Mr Remember Moyo, said during their bail application at Bulawayo High Court that they had been tortured. Mr Sibanda said that he had confessed after being tortured by the police and when they threatened to kill his family. Mr Moyo told the judge that the police in Mbembesi camp tortured him and forced him to confess to the murder by holding his legs apart and kicking him in the groin.
	President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa articulated the feelings of the whole world when he said:
	XClearly, in a situation where people get beaten up, where people get disenfranchised, obviously there cannot be free elections".
	He added that pressure on the Zimbabwean Government from the Commonwealth, SADC and the EU had not curbed Mugabe's attacks on the opposition. His brother, Mr Moeletsi Mbeki, has used even blunter language, warning that ZANU-PF is preparing for,
	Xa major onslaught against the population, and against supporters of the opposition movement",
	using militias armed with Angolan weapons. He has called for drastic measures against Harare to defuse the looming danger that could engulf the whole of southern Africa. I shall not go into detail on how Zimbabwe's economic crisis is threatening to spill over into neighbouring countries, because others have already put it better than I could. That situation presents dangers for the whole region.
	President Mbeki's reference to disenfranchisement related to the demand by the Registrar-General's office that voters must produce proof of residence. That will exclude whole slices of the population, including rural women, the urban poor who lack a freehold, farm workers and young people, together with an estimated 3 million Zimbabweans who are living outside the country and who, I understand, used to be able to vote by post. There are reports of voters being turned away from registration centres because of minor discrepancies in their identity cards and the other documents that they produce.
	The problems are already happening. These are the circumstances in which an election will be held. It is already late in the day, because the registration process, although it was extended, is due to finish on 19th December. If the SADC observers are to be the only ones allowed to monitor the elections, they ought to be present in Harare and other places right now. If they arrive only after the various measures that the noble Baroness outlined in her evidence to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs this morning, it will be too late. I understand that she told the Select Committee that, at a meeting of CMAG Ministers on 20th December and at a meeting of the SADC security organ at some point in January, assistance would be given in setting out agreed standards for a free and fair election in Zimbabwe. She said that once the outcomes of those meetings were clear, the international community would be in a better position to draw up the criteria that will guide the decision on whether a free and fair election is possible or has taken place. The problem is that it will be over by then. The circumstances will have been arranged by Mugabe and his thugs—the so-called war veterans, most of whom are far too young to have fought in the liberation war. They will be unleashed on the voters of Zimbabwe, who will be prevented from arriving at a free decision.
	Coupled with the attacks on the opposition, another particularly alarming feature of Mugabe's strategy to remain in power at all costs has been violence against the free media and the intimidation of journalists and media workers. We have already heard mention of the events at the start of this year, with the terrorist attack on the presses of the Daily News. Five of its six presses were shattered by a huge bomb. It was clear that only Mugabe and ZANU-PF had the motive and opportunity to commit such an act of terrorism, which was of a piece with all their other efforts to silence criticism.
	Just the other day, on 30th November, a drunken mob attacked the offices of the Daily News, smashing windows and destroying hundreds of copies of newspapers. The mob also attacked Mr Cyrus Nhara, a photojournalist who was trying to film the event. He escaped with bruises, although he lost his spectacles, the film and his shoes. The mob was led by Mr Winston Dzawo, a ZANU-PF central committee member.
	The government have now tabled a Bill requiring all journalists to be licensed by a statutory commission that will have the power to discipline them, suspend them or strike them off the register for alleged breaches of a planned code of conduct. As has already been said, foreign journalists are not going to be allowed to work in Zimbabwe. The information minister, Mr. Jonathan Moyo, has already branded six journalists working for foreign newspapers as terrorists, although in fact only one of them is not a Zimbabwean.
	Journalists are being picked up and detained on spurious charges. The Daily News reporter Mduduzi Mathuthu and his colleague the photographer Grey Chitiga were detained on 18th November on allegations of kidnapping and torture, but the charges were later dropped. Mr. Mduduzi was picked up and questioned again on 28th November in connection with an article he wrote saying that people had walked out on a speech that was being made by the vice president at a public rally.
	The rule of law has been fatally undermined, as the International Bar Association showed in the report that it published following a mission to Zimbabwe last March. Because of a shortage of time, I shall not go into the very damning conclusions that it reached in that report.
	Zimbabweans are now the third largest group of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom, and that is obviously connected with the way in which events are developing in that country. I am very glad that, in her excellent speech introducing the debate, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, mentioned the fact that Zimbabweans are the third largest group of asylum seekers to be fast-tracked through Oakington and the second largest group of asylum seekers in prison. If journalists, MDC members and other critics of Mugabe have good reason to fear persecution, why are those who do manage to escape rushed through the system and sent back?
	This morning, the Minister told the Foreign Affairs Committee that she was concerned about the timing of international observers being admitted for the presidential elections. As I said, with the flawed registration process coming to a conclusion a week from today, I believe that it is already far too late for a proper assessment to be made of the conditions in which free and fair elections could take place. However, I urge the noble Baroness to persuade SADC not to wait until it can send delegates to Harare to observe events, but to produce a preliminary assessment of the conditions, as was similarly done prior to last year's Peruvian elections. That was a very effective means of highlighting the international community's concerns and of pointing to the particular conditions in the country that made it impossible for free and fair elections to be held.
	If we did that in the case of Zimbabwe and brought out all the facts, some of which I have tried to describe in the course of these few remarks, we would at least set the scene for a judgment by the international community on the events that are to take place in March.

Viscount Goschen: My Lords, like other noble Lords who have spoken, I too have personal connections with Zimbabwe. Furthermore, like the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, I lived in Zambia, although at a rather different time, at the end of the 1980s and the beginning of the 1990s. I have been in a position to see the rather contrasting fate of those two countries.
	The tragedy of Zimbabwe is that its dire problems are entirely man-made. The current conditions of lawlessness, mob rule, violence, repression, economic chaos and impending famine are the direct consequences of very deliberate political decisions rather than incompetence.
	When I first visited the country in the late 1980s, it was still relatively stable and well ordered. There was also a general feeling, to my mind at least, that its people had done a remarkable job, as had its president, to put the horrors of the civil war behind them and concentrate on moving forward. That was only a few years after the civil war had ended. The country had a highly developed agricultural industry, producing ample food for domestic consumption and a surplus and cash crops for export. At that time, tourism was booming.
	Since then, however, as we have heard from all speakers today, the country has changed beyond recognition. As economic conditions have worsened and pressure on the government to deliver has grown, President Mugabe has sought to distract attention by relaunching an old conflict which had been very largely dead and buried. In doing so, to maintain power he has demonstrated his willingness to sacrifice not only all the considerable achievements that the country and its people had made since independence, but the fate of all Zimbabwe citizens except the political elite.
	One has only to look over the border to Zambia to see the achievements that have been made—albeit from an extremely low base—during the same time, particularly since the 1991 multi-party elections. In fact, I left Zambia on the very day that the Kaunda regime, after 27-odd years, ended. Since then the situation has improved, although very slowly. Contrast that with Zimbabwe, to which we used to go to buy provisions and supplies. The contrast is very marked indeed.
	The facts of the current conditions in Zimbabwe are well known; there has been no dispute about them in today's debate. We have heard some very graphic descriptions. The terror unleashed on the country by gangs of ZANU-PF thugs, otherwise known as war veterans, operating under the government's control, has wrought untold damage. My noble friend Lord Caithness has given a very thorough analysis of the agricultural conditions. Agriculture is the key point facing the country. Zimbabwe, incredibly rich in agricultural resources, is now producing next to no food. That can only signal dire consequences ahead.
	We have also heard that Zimbabwe's independent judiciary survived for a surprisingly long time considering the pressure from the government. However, that independence has now largely gone. As the regime of terror has continued, we have heard of the moves to frustrate the opposition MDC's campaign. Those moves include intimidation, the unlawful arrest of officials and the destruction of opposition offices. The tourism industry has almost totally collapsed. Moreover, Zimbabwe has no money to buy food, and it is not growing food itself now. Given the acute food shortages that will inevitably occur, the country's lack of foreign exchange and its lack of ability to generate any, the suspension of the rule of law, mass dissent and the impending presidential election, it becomes clear that the potential for very serious conflict is both real and immediate.
	It is equally clear that the policies pursued by interested parties, including Her Majesty's Government, the Commonwealth, the EU and indeed SADC to attempt to control Mugabe have not worked. Despite the Abuja agreement he has continued his policies of brutal repression and destruction. I do not seek here, however, to criticise Her Majesty's Government. I believe they have done their very best to influence President Mugabe both directly and through other interested parties to the limits of a constructive, non-confrontational approach. We are indeed lucky to have the Minister with responsibility for Africa, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, replying to the debate and in this House. Looking back through the reports of the multitude of occasions when Ministers—the noble Baroness and her predecessors—have reported back to the House, their efforts are very clear.
	Like the noble Lord, Lord Brett, I thought long and hard about intervening in this debate. There is very little dissent in the western world about current events in Zimbabwe. I partly see the noble Lord's point that the louder we shout in the United Kingdom, the more strength is put to Mugabe's elbow. Hitherto I have agreed with that view, and I have imposed a self-denying ordinance on contributing to debates. However, my feeling now is that the situation is becoming so severe and urgent that a stronger approach is required.
	We know that President Mugabe is not overly concerned about the international reputation of himself or his regime, nor indeed about the economic well-being of those whom he governs. That clearly reduces the effect of international pronouncements. I do not think for a moment that he will be receiving a copy of Hansard tomorrow or that he will be unduly concerned about what your Lordships have said. However, we do have the opportunity to influence the policy of Her Majesty's Government, and they have the opportunity to influence the policy of the Commonwealth and to make representations to SADC, the EU and of course directly to South Africa.
	I totally agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that as far as possible the solution must be a regional one. Mugabe will not feel threatened while there is a degree of tacit acquiescence with his domestic policies. He will begin to feel threatened only when pressure is applied through African leaders. I agree also with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that once the regime begins to crumble, as it inevitably will, then it has the potential—as history has shown over the past 10 years or so—to fall extremely quickly.
	Looking at what has been done by SADC and by South Africa, it is clear that, on a diplomatic level, South Africa has been making strong representations towards Zimbabwe. But we have not heard—we understand the reasons why—strong condemnation from President Thabo Mbeki. However, it appears that that situation is now changing; that the consequences on the destabilisation of the region and the devaluation of the rand, which is now happening extremely quickly, is scaring both investors and the administration in South Africa. That is a good thing because we need President Mbeki to make strong representations to President Mugabe that a continuation of the present regime is unacceptable. I urge the Government to do everything they can to support that stance.
	We need to look towards what has been done in the United States in terms of more direct action. The so-called Xsmart sanctions" that were passed by Congress to freeze assets and impose travel bans are the type of measure we should urgently consider, not on a unilateral basis but by applying pressure within the European Union and among other partner countries. The time has come for much tougher action against the Mugabe regime. It is a question of timing. The consequences of not taking action are frightening.
	The elections are close. I listened with care to what noble Lords said about the possibility of those elections being free and fair. They cannot possibly be entirely free and fair if one considers what has happened historically. The question is: what pressure can we apply to reduce the level of intimidation that Mugabe is able to exert?
	Zimbabwe is a wonderful country. I share the optimism of the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that in the not too distant future it will return to being a great country. But how it gets there is of the utmost importance.

The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, is to be congratulated on assembling a formidable force today. I am sure we will be heard in Zimbabwe in the way that we would like to be heard.
	I shall be brief because so much has already been said. It was disappointing that SADC chose not to confront President Mugabe on Monday, in spite of the strong and welcome statements we heard last week from President Thabo Mbeki. But it has been an enormous relief, as my noble friend said, that the South African president finally decided to speak out in his own way. I can only speculate with the noble Lord, Lord Brett, that he still feels that quiet persuasion will be more effective than threats of sanctions in preventing more bloodshed and intimidation before the presidential elections.
	Another powerful voice known to the noble Lord, Lord Brett, is that of Mr Zwelinzima Vavi, the general secretary of COSATU—the Congress of South African Trade Unions. He said quite bluntly on Monday that Zimbabwe could be saved from economic collapse only if President Mugabe was removed from power at the next election. Mr Vavi told trade unionists from all over southern Africa that Mugabe's sole aim was power. He said he was,
	Xdesperate and does not care how many corpses he leaves behind".
	The opposition parties in Zimbabwe will be greatly cheered by those comments from next door, because the MDC needs all the encouragement it can get. It has done well to stay in the race and is already a favourite having just captured its third mayoral election in the town of Cheguto, with Harare itself now in its sights before February. But it is still fighting against enormous odds, not just the rhetorical question of whether there will be free and fair elections, which none of us can answer, but also the reality of daily intimidation and violence against its activists and even its supporters. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, with characteristic skill described the pain that that is bringing every day to families. The victims include teachers, members of the clergy and local leaders whose very lives are often at stake alongside the people they serve.
	The task of political parties and their organisations is made much less easy by the government's attacks on members of the judiciary who, as long as they remain independent, are supposed to be the final arbiters of any electoral fraud and malpractice. However, many of them feel too enfeebled to be so.
	The official ZANU-PF policy of intimidation extends to other parts of the constitution—elected MPs, trade unions and the national and local media. The attack on national newspapers, like the Daily News is well known; but the work of local media rather less so. Those who follow Zimbabwe closely depend on reports from local journalists and non-governmental organisations. The international press and the outside world owe a huge debt to those individuals who, in a fine tradition, take personal risks every day to observe the situation—like the recent violence of ZANU-PF thugs in Epworth—at first hand and report it as accurately as they can. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, Mr Moyo's new Information Bill contains much to be feared for those people, especially the new commission with its accreditation rules, many of which are aimed directly at the foreign correspondents on whom we here all depend.
	I look forward to the noble Baroness's analysis of the vexed land issue and should like to ask two questions following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Park, said. Does the Minister believe that the Abuja declaration helped the situation or was it merely an expression of good will? Or was it something much more sinister, as the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, suggested? Secondly, is the UNDP, which has been charged with this responsibility for so long, making any headway in arriving at the great compromise involving the international community? Or will that important question be permanently left to politicians? If there is to be a new UNDP report, when will it be implemented and who will follow it up? Who will be responsible for it? I appreciate that the noble Baroness may not be able to answer those points.
	Despite the prevailing economic gloom already described, there have been one or two encouraging signs. Tobacco prices have picked up. I notice that, while the tobacco industry is set to decline by one-third next year, small-scale producers are expected to double their share. Their role must not be overlooked. That is an encouraging sign and is partly due to increased planting by small-holders and not just to the decline of the commercial farms. However, it is a straw in the wind compared with the overall slump in agriculture as a whole, the continuing land invasions, the aggression against the larger commercial farmers and farm workers, and the unhappy, unnecessary migration of skills out of the country. I strongly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, about the possible abuse of food aid as a political weapon. I hope that the predictions of the right reverend Prelate in relation to the non-governmental organisations and Churches will prove right.
	The Zimbabwe Foreign Minister, Mr Stan Mudenge, has yet again accused Britain of interfering—I hope that the noble Baroness will resist—in internal African affairs, which is all he can devise as a foreign policy. Mr Patrick Chinamasa, the Justice Minister, followed suit. Whatever the mistakes of the past, that is a crude form of racism which most Zimbabweans know to be shallow and transparent in the light of their government's well-publicised and anti-democratic policies.
	Of course Britain will and must receive that criticism like water off a duck's back. We shall always go on taking an interest in Zimbabwean affairs and, as the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, put it, we do not have to say Xthe wrong thing". We need to speak with conviction.
	I am sure that the Government will stand firm, will continue to ignore the blandishments and will help to resist Mr Mugabe's bullying of his own people. The time is long past when liberals in the United Kingdom from all parties were, with good reason, praising Mugabe's achievements as a freedom fighter in the wake of the civil war and the Smith era. His South African comrades in arms are now at last disowning him too. If the opposition can keep up the momentum, it should be only a matter of time—let us hope it is well before the next CHOGM—before the front-line African states all see the value of united action. If sanctions are not imposed, at the very least there must be a determined effort by the international community to insist on election observers from all countries and to reassert the rule of law and democracy.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, congratulate my noble friend Lady Park on introducing this important debate. The House has certainly enjoyed some powerful and well informed speeches.
	As Zimbabwe descends ever further into the abyss, one of the most important issues is the shameful threat to its government's last truly vigorous domestic critics—the press. As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the government are preventing most foreign correspondents from entering the country. Some have already been thrown out, including representatives of British and other countries' national newspapers and the BBC. The BBC World Service is doing tremendous work in Zimbabwe. Is the Minister aware of any steps taken by the Zimbabwe Government to block access to, or to jam, external broadcasting services of which they disapprove?
	Over the past 18 months the editors and staff of the three principal Zimbabwe independent newspapers, the Daily News, the Zimbabwe Independent and The Financial Gazette, have been subjected to almost daily violence and intimidation by the so-called Xwar veterans". Their journalists have been arrested and tortured by the police with beatings and electric shocks. Thousands of copies of those papers are taken and destroyed to preserve the state monopoly on information. Ruling party militants randomly attack vendors selling independent newspapers.
	The chairman of the Zimbabwe journalists' union, Basildon Peta, is the target of repeated threats simply because he has had the courage to speak out against the government. Geoffrey Nyarota, editor of the Daily News, has faced an attempt on his life, and, as has been said, his printing press was blown up in an effort to silence him. That harassment has extended to directors and shareholders.
	Despite those threats, the Daily News remains the best selling newspaper among a population tired of government control propaganda trotted out by The Herald and The Chronicle. But none of that intimidation has been able to stop the revelations of the government's responsibility for violence, their contempt for the law and the extent of the economic crisis Zimbabwe now faces. So the government intend to rush through parliament the Bill mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, who spelt out some of its consequences.
	In addition to possible licence revocation, journalists may receive a prison sentence of up to two years, or a fine of up to 1,800 US dollars, if the output meets certain requirements for punishment. It will be a crime to criticise the president or to Xspread alarm and despondency". Publications that breach those requirements can have their assets seized. Two weeks ago the government accused six foreign journalists of Xassisting terrorists" for reporting on recent violence in Bulawayo. That would make them liable to the death penalty under the proposed legislation.
	Any media house—local or foreign—represented in Zimbabwe will be obliged to pay contributions to a Xmedia and information fund" for the notoriously erratic Information Minister, Jonathan Moyo, to use as he pleases. The size of the contributions has yet to be determined, but that is also Moyo's prerogative. Jonathan Moyo is wanted in Kenya and South Africa for alleged fraud.
	The measure I am discussing is one of the most draconian pieces of parliamentary legislation ever proposed in a Commonwealth country. If passed, it will ensure that all information in Zimbabwe is subject to the strictest controls. It is aimed at one thing—shutting down a critical press ahead of what is expected to be a violent and extensively rigged presidential election.
	The media are one of the most powerful forces within our modern world. They have the capacity for great good and for great harm. They can inform, challenge, debate and hold accountable those institutions of the state that would otherwise govern untrammelled. We in this country take press freedom very much for granted and, perhaps because of the excesses of some newspapers, fail to appreciate the vital role that it has to play in our democracy. The people of Zimbabwe have little to support and protect them against the Mugabe regime and the press there has been at the forefront of the championing of democracy. I trust, therefore, that the Minister and the Government will do all in their power to ensure that foreign journalists have access to the country before the presidential elections and that they will make full representations against the new Bill, both within the Commonwealth and more widely.

Lord Carrington: My Lords, I apologise for rather unexpectedly standing between the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and his speech. However, I shall be brief as I agree with almost everything that has been said this afternoon. All of us view with sadness and horror what has happened over the past few years in Zimbabwe, which was once a prosperous and happy country.
	I view with disappointment and sadness what has become of President Mugabe over the past years. When he won the election in 1980 I felt very alarmed at what he might do. He was an avowed Marxist and had made some fiery and provocative speeches. But in the event he was both sensible and magnanimous to those whom he might well have thought did not deserve that magnanimity. We should remember that. I think that he acted sensibly largely as a result of his experience of living in both Tanzania and Mozambique. He saw what their governments did on independence and he had no wish to preside over a bankrupt country, as both those countries in the end turned out to be.
	As the right reverend Prelate reminded us, President Mugabe talked at the outset about reconciliation and said that he wanted a partnership between white and black and a prosperous country. However, that has not been the case in the past few years. As the economy deteriorated and his popularity evaporated, he thought it necessary to pursue economic policies as well as those directed against white farmers which have brought about the present catastrophe in Zimbabwe. It is a human catastrophe in terms of human rights, as my noble friend has just said, and an economic, political and, of course, agricultural catastrophe. I refer also to the muzzling of the press.
	The only comment that I mildly disagreed with was when the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said that he did not think that what President Mugabe was doing was rational. However, from President Mugabe's point of view, his actions are wholly rational. All that he wants to do is to stay there, and the only way in which he will do that is by doing precisely what is he doing.
	I fear that President Mugabe is not, in the present circumstances, likely to listen to or bow to outside pressure—particularly, I am afraid, from this country. That only affords him an opportunity to make another outburst against colonialism, and I am not sure that that helps those whom we seek to help. However, that does not mean that we should do nothing. The problem is, what do we do?
	I do not have many ideas that differ from those that have been advanced in this debate. The Commonwealth must do more. It was a great pity—although I understand why—that the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting did not take place in Brisbane. That would have provided an opportunity for heads of government to put pressure on President Mugabe—that is very difficult to do when one is not face to face. The Secretary-General should try to persuade black members of the Commonwealth to put pressure on him. It is undoubtedly true that what is happening in Zimbabwe will have an effect, sooner or later, on its neighbours. It is as well that they should understand that.
	I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, about South Africa. South Africa is the key to this matter. I was cheered by the recent statement by President Mbeki. I was even more cheered by what President Mandela said right at the beginning of all this. President Mbeki has become more aware of what the problems are—for him as well as for Zimbabwe. There is no doubt that he is the key and that he has the power to make things happen. To Zimbabwe, South Africa is absolutely vital.
	I hope, too, that the Government can persuade the European Union to take a more active part—perhaps a leading part—in trying to persuade President Mugabe in this regard.
	Lastly, I very much agree with my noble friends Lady Park and Lord Caithness that we should try to do something about the finances and travel arrangements of members of the Mugabe regime and their friends. We should ensure that they do not consider themselves welcome in civilised countries.
	Those are not spectacular remedies and, in the short term, they may not have very much effect. However, they should certainly be related to a free and fair election—we must make that abundantly plain. In the end, the remedy must lie in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. However difficult it is, they have to be responsible for their future. I hope that they will have all the help that we in this country can properly give them.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I should much rather listen to the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, than detain the House for too long with my speech—I am not an expert on Zimbabwe. We know how long the noble Lord spent working on the subject. One of my many memories from the Lancaster House conversations—he may not be aware of this—is that he was sufficiently caught up in those discussions that he took, almost sight unseen by his private office, a speech on the future of Europe that was written by the junior members of the planning staff, one of whom was my wife. He delivered it at a major event in Aachen the next day. I still cherish the headline in the Financial Times the following day:
	XCarrington announces major changes of British policy towards Europe".
	I am not, as I said, an expert on southern Africa and I therefore want to talk briefly about the wider context and raise the question of multilateral co-operation. We all recognise, after this sober and very well-informed debate, the difficulties that the United Kingdom would have acting on its own. As the former colonial power, the UK is an easy target. It is easy to charge that Britain is interested only in defending white farmers, even when it is clear that that is not the case. One therefore has to have sympathy with Her Majesty's Government and the Minister—they have a thankless task. We all know that the Minister has worked extremely hard on this matter and will have an acute sense of the limits of Britain's influence if we act on our own.
	We have heard in great detail about the current situation's dangers, which involve the destruction of the economy and of communities. There is a rising number of internally displaced people, which is leading to the destruction of order—not just of property rights but of the whole structure of law and order. In the long run, that could weaken the state and reduce the Zimbabwean state to an instrument of force that depends on a dominant and authoritarian leader, who is himself gradually dying.
	We have also heard evidence of cross-border corruption, of Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo and the profits that are flowing across the border from the Congo. We have also heard about the dangers of spill-over to Zimbabwe's neighbours, particularly South Africa, which is not the strongest state. It needs considerable assistance and already has high unemployment. That situation would be exacerbated if a flood of refugees crossed the border from Zimbabwe. Indeed, there have already been several such problems in South Africa—local people have had to compete for work with people from Zimbabwe.
	We also recognise that there is a major spill-over to Britain. Asylum seekers look in the first instance towards this country, and calls for help—for aid now and for reconstruction later—are likely to be delivered to us. Will the Minister give more details about the Government's current attitude towards asylum seekers from Zimbabwe? Under the current circumstances, those who are threatened in Zimbabwe clearly deserve to have a sympathetic hearing in Britain. Some of the stories that we have been hearing about refugees from Zimbabwe are, to say the least, disturbing. I hope that we will have an assurance from the Minister that the current policy towards asylum seekers from that very troubled country is in good hands.
	I turn to the wider context. There are many other weak states across Africa. The danger of state collapse or of corrupt leaders spreading violence and thus devastating the chances of economic development are not found in Zimbabwe alone. The problem in west Africa involves Charles Taylor and Liberia spilling over the borders; that is very much part of the problem that we face in Sierra Leone.
	We have learnt that British intervention in Sierra Leone unavoidably involves co-operation with those who have influence over Sierra Leone's neighbours—the French in Cote d'Ivoire and Guinea, the Americans in Liberia, and so on. The problems in central Africa involve the dreadful legacy from President Mbutu's despoiling of Zaire for so many years. That very large country is left with immense disorder. We even see some dark clouds in east Africa, where the willingness of those in power to give up power and to accept the outcome of elections is in doubt. I understand, for example, that the opposition leader in last year's Ugandan election found it very convenient to disappear last summer; he turned up two days later in New York saying that he was fearful for his own safety. We know that Kenya is not a perfect democracy. It is very sad that two countries that have had economic success and political recovery in recent years are again possibly threatened—I put it no stronger than that—by disorder.
	Britain can do something in terms of democracy and order through its own example. I underline the proposal made by the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside. Britain could invite people from those countries to observe our elections. They would see that occasionally British governments do give up power—not entirely by a fair election system, of course, but one to which we know that the Labour Party is deeply wedded. But at least in this country we have a semi-fair voting system which occasionally allows governments to change and does not give a government who have 40 per cent of the votes more than 65 per cent of the seats. That is perhaps something that we can show them. It might even have an interesting effect on us if they were to ask awkward questions.
	What else can Her Majesty's Government do? Clearly any action must be multilateral: through the Commonwealth, the European Union, the United Nations and other global institutions. Several noble Lords have clearly said that our first aim must be to support South Africa and its efforts within SADC. Although we may agree with the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, that African problems require African solutions, I fear that the accumulation of problems across Africa risks overwhelming the capability of African governments and, in particular, the Government of South Africa, who are now engaged in a number of problems, to solve them on their own. Here, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others have said, the value of the Commonwealth is clearly at its highest. The pressure is from other former colonial states to accept the loss of power. Accepting the importance of order as such clearly is extremely valuable.
	I want to ask the Minister a little more about the role of the European Union and how far the EU has moved on joint action towards Zimbabwe. Africa is, after all, now very much Europe's south. Over the past nine months we have received some very strong signals from the Bush Administration and its predecessor that disorder in Africa would be Europe's primary responsibility. The United States saw itself as working mainly elsewhere. The EU is the major trading partner of almost all states in Africa. It is the main aid supplier to all of them and the main recipient of refugees. Therefore, we clearly need a more coherent EU strategy towards sub-Saharan Africa as a whole.
	I suggest that that is another area where Britain must lead in shaping EU policy because the gap between the rhetoric of EU governments and the commitments which they are prepared to make is sometimes embarrassingly large. I remember the prolonged argument surrounding the South African trading agreement in which Italy, Spain and Portugal, in particular, resisted making minor trade concessions and blocked a major political initiative.
	I also want to ask the Minister how far we have got in preparing smart sanctions in the EU as a whole. We remember that when General Pinochet was in Britain the Spanish asked for his extradition to Spain. I note that President Mugabe has recently been in Spain. There are some interesting parallels which we might wish to explore with regard to that. If we are pursuing smart sanctions, clearly they must involve both travel and funds.
	At this point, perhaps I may something to the Conservative Benches in this Chamber. On a number of occasions over the past few months the questions of off-shore financial centres, tax avoidance and other matters have arisen. This type of smart sanction requires tighter controls of off-shore financial centres. We all recognise that. After all, since September 11th the Bush Administration has totally reversed its position on off-shore financial centres from wishing to weaken OECD activities on this matter to wishing to strengthen them.
	In our policy towards Gibraltar, the Channel Islands and the Cayman Islands, as well as, of course, towards such places as Switzerland and the City of London itself, we must recognise the implications of pursuing this type of smart-sanctions policy. General Abacha and his family, who despoiled Nigeria of a great deal of oil revenues, kept rather a lot of their money in London as well as in Jersey and Guernsey. Therefore, we may need to look at our own policies in that regard.
	We recognise the limits of Britain's influence. We also recognise the unavoidability of British involvement in what happens in Zimbabwe. That involvement is clearly best expressed through working with others as far as possible to bring joint pressures to bear.

Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend Lady Park for opening this debate with her usual precision, accuracy and clarity. I was particularly pleased that my noble friend Lord Carrington was able to participate. There have been many superb speeches, but my noble friend was, in effect, in at the founding of the republic and therefore speaks with particular experience and authority. We were very grateful for his involvement in the debate.
	My noble friend Lady Park painted a picture, which was then reflected in many speeches, of a country of starvation and unemployment. Clearly we are looking at the potential for a full-blown humanitarian crisis. We have heard a dreary catalogue of horrific figures: 25 per cent of the population are HIV infected; 29 per cent of children are undernourished; 35 per cent of the population have insufficient basic food; there is 80 per cent inflation; law and order is collapsing; and press freedom is suppressed, as my noble friend Lord Astor and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us. In addition, violence is everywhere—in Mashonaland, Matabeleland, Masvingo, Manicaland and the Midlands. Everywhere, day after day, miserable violence and brutality take place. Of course, that presents a direct threat to the stability of the whole of southern Africa and has very serious implications for even wider global stability.
	I accept totally the corrective perspective which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, added to this gloomy picture. I believe that he was right to remind us that the situation could turn round. Potentially, Zimbabwe is a very rich country and matters could come right. But what is the condition? The condition is that the ageing tyrant Mugabe should go and that there should be free and fair elections which would see him on his way. That is the big question. Shall we be able to see those free and fair elections? At present the omens are not good.
	As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reminded us, there have been monstrous denunciations of the Movement for Democratic Change. There have been clear indications that Mr Mugabe wants to stay and turn up in glory at the postponed Commonwealth meeting—that is probably his ambition—a few months from now. The question of monitors seems to be on and off. I gather that, although the monitors are not to be from the EU, some will be admitted. Perhaps the noble Baroness will enlighten us on whether there will be monitors at all. If they are admitted, is it too late anyway? As the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the registration process is well on its way and almost over. If that is rigged—all the evidence is that it is being rigged—we can, even now, say goodbye to the prospect of free and fair elections.
	Therefore, however much one wants to be optimistic and however much one salutes, as I certainly do, the immense bravery and courage of Mr Tsvangirai and his colleagues, to which the noble Lord, Lord Brett, referred, the plain fact is that this is a rapidly deteriorating situation. It is one where I believe we have reached a turning point in relation to our own attitudes and in relation to asking ourselves what action we can possibly take.
	In passing, perhaps I may reiterate a point that I believe was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace, and many others, including my noble friend Lady Park. Is it correct that we are sending back and rejecting for asylum MDC supporters? Can the noble Baroness tell us how many, why and in what conditions? Until we know that, I, for one, shall have a very unpleasant feeling that we are not treating our brave friends in the right way but are perhaps sending them back to a horrific fate.
	The right thing for us all to have done—most of your Lordships have sought to do it—is to say, XNever mind about all the criticism and the misery. What can we do?" Perhaps the answer is that we cannot do very much, as the noble Baroness has indicated from time to time in the past. That is slightly different from the tone taken by the Prime Minister when, in an exuberant moment, he addressed his party conference. He said:
	XThere must be no tolerance for Mugabe's henchmen".
	I do not know whether that will be turned into practice, but it indicates that we should perhaps be a little more vigorous.
	I sympathise. It is easy when not in government and when one is on this Opposition side to say, XDo something; do something". The noble Baroness would be right if she were to say that it is all too easy to produce menus of action when one is outside government. But, in the delicate position inside government, it is obviously much more difficult. However, I agree with noble Lords who have said that perhaps the point has come at which we should change gear in our tone and the vigour of our approach to this matter.
	We should consider getting away from the tone of apology and inferiority complex in our language and the view that we cannot enter into this issue, even where the rule of law is being openly flouted, because we were once a colonial power, we are a northern European country, this is Africa and our writ should not run here. I believe that we can go a little further than that. We can say that we share—most of the nations of Africa aspire to share, even if they do not succeed—the values of democracy and the rule of law.
	We should not have stayed silent earlier in the year when the Belgians and the French received Mugabe in great pomp and circumstance, as the noble Baroness, Lady Park, stated. That was a bad moment in Britain's democracy when one felt not at all proud to see the way in which the Government behaved. We should be more pressing on the European Union, even now. I believe that it is more ready to act, but we should ask it to specify at what point it will act. Will that be when the elections turn out to be unfair and not free? What kind of sanctions will be introduced? Are we suggesting a menu of actions not to be acted on now but if and when things go badly wrong? We should be unapologetic in our support for a much more vigorous Commonwealth pattern of activity. I believe that the Commonwealth Heads of Government will not meet formally until March. However, I hope that before then there will be informal meetings to discuss how they can keep up the pressure.
	As my noble friend Lord Carrington rightly reminded us, we should give every encouragement and support to Mr Mbeki. As the noble Lord, Lord Brett, stated, Mr Mbeki has reached his present position—which is much more encouraging—with difficulty. Before, he had a certain relationship and respect for Mugabe. Now I think that has gone. It has been difficult for him. We should recognise that difficulty and support him and his colleagues.
	We should back the SADC recommendations vigorously. Although at present SADC has moved away from the idea of sanctions, we should maintain an open and full dialogue with SADC about future dangers. We should welcome the proposal by the US Congress for targeted sanctions, which is to be signed by the President before Christmas. That reflects a completely new view in Washington of a much more robust kind and a realisation that what is happening in Zimbabwe could have major implications for stability in the entire region and even wider.
	We should say openly that if the election situation spirals downwards as already looks likely and the elections are to be rigged to give Mugabe another six years of presidency finally to ruin his nation, we should consider smart sanctions and the freezing of assets. We should do more than consider them; we should work at how to bring in smart sanctions, freezing of assets, travel bans and other measures which would really begin to bring home to Mugabe and his gang that they are isolated pariahs in the world.
	The truth is—this is all that needs to be said—that quiet dialogue was well-intentioned. I understand why that approach was used, but it has failed. Mr Mbeki realised that it has failed. We all know that it has failed. A turning point has been reached when we must take a stronger line, on behalf of ourselves as a nation but also with all the other multilateral groups in which we work, of which there are many. We pride ourselves on all the areas in which we operate around the world. Let us use these opportunities. In the mean time, as summarised by my noble friend Lady Park, what we see is the murder of a nation. That can be stopped, but there is not much time.

Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, for initiating this important debate. Zimbabwe is rightly the cause of much concern and debate in this House and beyond. Noble Lords today have again given voice to that concern. We all listened carefully to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington. He was responsible for negotiating the Lancaster House agreement. We all value his knowledge, experience and words of wisdom. I am pleased that the noble Lord was able to participate in today's debate. The many reports from Zimbabwe of politically-motivated violence directed at the political opposition, journalists, teachers, farmers and ordinary Zimbabweans are deeply worrying to the international community.
	The Government of Zimbabwe have sought to portray the country's problems as the understandable consequences of a spontaneous popular clamour for land. That approach does not bear detailed scrutiny. No one doubts the urgent need for land reform in Zimbabwe, but ordinary Zimbabweans can distinguish between an effective, transparent and sustainable land reform programme and the Zimbabwe Government's current fast-track programme.
	A number of noble Lords spoke specifically about land. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, said that it was a pity that the importance of land was not recognised at Lancaster House. In his statement to the plenary session of the Lancaster House talks on 11th October 1979, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, stated:
	XWe recognise that the future government of Zimbabwe, whatever its political complexion, will wish to expand and extend its land ownership. Any resettlement scheme would clearly have to be carefully prepared and implemented to avoid adverse effects on production. The Zimbabwe Government might well wish to draw in outside donors such as the World Bank in preparing and implementing a full-scale agricultural development plan. The British Government recognise the importance of this issue to a future Zimbabwe government and will be prepared, within the limits imposed by our financial resources, to help".
	Given that so many Members of your Lordships' House spoke about land reform—the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness—it is important to say a little about some of the history of our relationship with the Zimbabwe Government with respect to land. Between 1980 and 1985 the UK Government provided #47 million for land reform, #20 million as a specific land resettlement grant and #27 million in the form of budgetary support to help meet the Zimbabwe Government's own contribution to the programme. Three million pounds of that money was eventually returned.
	In 1998 we participated in a land reform conference in Zimbabwe and endorsed the principles agreed at that conference, as did the Government of Zimbabwe. Those principles included transparency, respect for the law, poverty reduction, affordability and consistency with Zimbabwe's wider economic interests. We remain willing to support a land reform programme that is carried out in accordance with the principles agreed by donors and the Government of Zimbabwe in 1998. In the absence of a government-led programme which we felt able to support, the Department for International Development established in March 2000 a #5 million land resettlement challenge fund to support private sector and civil society led resettlement initiatives.
	Unfortunately, the Zimbabwe Government have not allowed such private sector initiatives to proceed. They pressed ahead with their fast-track resettlement programme. In late 2000, the UNDP administrator proposed to the Zimbabwe Government a slowing down of their fast-track resettlement programme to fit Zimbabwe's implementation capacity and independent monitoring of the situation in commercial farming areas, including law and order. This year, at the Abuja discussions, we reiterated our support for an effective and well-managed land reform programme and undertook to support such a land reform programme as long as the Government of Zimbabwe met their commitments under the Abuja agreement. The right reverend Prelate is right. When I went to Zimbabwe, the Commonwealth team welcomed the Zimbabwe joint resettlement initiative. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that the UNDP has recently been in Zimbabwe looking at land. It has concluded its work on the ground. We expect its report shortly.
	Zimbabwe's crisis goes beyond land. Its once independent judiciary has been systematically undermined; its police and armed forces have been politicised; its health and education systems are under severe strain; and its once dynamic economy has contracted by 8 per cent this year and, if that continues, it faces total de-industrialisation within three years. Zimbabwe's reputation as a friendly, attractive place to do business has been tarnished. Worse still, its economic implosion is damaging the economies, investment prospects and business confidence of its SADC neighbours.
	Zimbabwe was once one of Africa's brightest stars. It is salutary to witness the decline of a country, which, at independence, had the full support of the international community. That analysis is not controversial. Even those whom President Mugabe considers to be his friends would agree with it. The real debate, as we have seen today, is about how the international community can best achieve a change in direction. There are calls from some for sanctions and travel bans, but, in the same breath, demands to get access for election observers. There are some who believe that Zimbabwe's problems can be solved by giving the Government of Zimbabwe more time and engaging it again in dialogue, despite their scant regard to date for the commitments made under the Abuja agreement.
	The reality is that Zimbabwe, in the words of Malawi's Foreign Minister Patel,
	Xneeds a careful and mature approach".
	That is a very important comment because we have worked hard to ensure that this is not a bilateral problem. Sanctions may seem attractive at first sight, but unilateral measures may not be effective. They could actually play into the hands of those who maintain that the root of the problem is the UK/Zimbabwe relationship. I shall return to that issue later. But I also recognise that open-ended dialogue has brought little progress.
	I say to the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, that what we say in this House has an impact. There is a sense that it is used to build popular support. The Government of Zimbabwe use what is said in this House and what is said by the Government to portray this issue as one which is between white and black, between the developed and the developing world and between the rich and the poor. But, and here I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, what we say also has resonance with those who want to see an end to violence and intimidation. So it is very important that the language that we use is such that the Government of Zimbabwe understand our concerns, but also that those who are in opposition understand that we want to see a different kind of situation in Zimbabwe.
	As the noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, said, this is a situation that requires an African solution. It is clear to me from my work on the issue that if the Government of Zimbabwe are going to listen to anyone, they will listen to their closest neighbours. The best route to a resolution of Zimbabwe's crisis is sustained, focused and unremitting international pressure. We shall remain committed to our key objective—a democratic, stable and prosperous Zimbabwe.
	The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, spoke of the need to work with the European Union and with the Commonwealth. We have worked with allies and partners to build the broad coalition. We shall continue to do so. We are working with our EU partners through the mechanism of consultations under Article 96 of the Cotonou agreement.
	We are also working with our Commonwealth partners. The noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, described the Commonwealth with respect to this issue as being supine. She expressed some disappointment at the Commonwealth's failure to suspend Zimbabwe. Action against a country that flouts the principles of the Harare Declaration is usually taken only in certain narrowly defined circumstances—mainly the unconstitutional overthrow of the legitimate government. That limit on the Commonwealth mandate is too restricted. That is why we support an expansion of the Commonwealth action group's role to cover a wider range of situations. That matter will be discussed at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in March next year.
	We went the extra mile at Abuja on 6th December. I say to the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, that I thought that Abuja helped. It produced a broadly acceptable framework for addressing and resolving concerns. But, as noble Lords know, the Government of Zimbabwe have failed to honour their commitment.
	We are also working with SADC, and specifically with the Governments of South Africa, Mozambique, Malawi and Botswana. We welcomed the visit to Harare by the SADC heads of government on 10th and 11th September and the most recent visit by Ministers earlier this week.
	My noble friend Lord Hughes spoke of the importance of regional concerns. The Government of Zimbabwe have not so far responded to them. However, the important point is that all this action by the international community is complementary and a signal of growing international consensus on the issue.
	The noble Lord, Lord St John of Bletso, asked specifically what we are doing to encourage President Mbeki in terms of pursuing this situation. Zimbabwe has been discussed between ourselves and the South Africans at every level. I saw at first hand, when I visited Zimbabwe as part of a Commonwealth group and we had representations from a range of stakeholders, the concerns being expressed about the breakdown of the rule of law, the importance of human rights and freedom of expression. But, we also had representations from other organisations who considered that the approach being taken by the Government of Zimbabwe was the correct one.
	The result of Zimbabwe's repeated failure to work constructively with the international community is the prospect of tough joint action. We believe that that approach is beginning to work. The world knows what is happening in Zimbabwe. International opinion across Africa, Europe, North America and the Commonwealth is consistent. The 15 countries of the European Union expect Zimbabwe to return to sustainable and democratic policies by the end of January. The United States Congress has set stiff conditions for the resumption of full relations with Zimbabwe.
	The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group will meet in London on 20th November to begin preparations for the Heads of Government Meeting in Australia in March. Zimbabwe will be an item on the agenda. The UN Development Programme has recently been in Zimbabwe to see for itself what is happening on the ground.
	I turn to the election which President Mugabe has said will be in March, although an actual date has not been set. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that the meeting of the SADC security organ will be on 17th December, not in January.
	This morning, when I gave evidence on Zimbabwe to the Foreign Affairs Committee, I said that the international community needs to be clear about the standards against which we judge whether the people of Zimbabwe have had the opportunity to exercise their democratic rights in an environment free of harassment and intimidation.
	I agree with noble Lords that it is important that observers are allowed in early to enable observation of the run up to the election. The MDC is in court today to challenge the provisions of the election legislation.
	My noble friend Lord Hughes of Woodside, the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale and Lord Howell of Guildford, and others raised the subject of international observers. We think their presence essential. President Mugabe has said that international observers will be welcome, but not from the European Union. He went on to say that there are some Xgood countries" in the European Union and that observers from those countries would be invited in their own right, not from the EU as a body. My noble friend Lord Brett specifically asked me to clarify that point.
	With respect to what the standards might be—the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, pressed me on this—this March, SADC's parliamentary forum produced some impressive norms and standards for free and fair elections in the region. Those were agreed by parliamentarians from across the region, including Zimbabwe. It is important that a judgment on next year's election is reached according to those regional standards. I must tell the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, that we have urged SADC to take early action.

Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the noble Baroness tell us how, if the SADC norms were implemented, they would allow observers to comment on or evaluate the registration process, which comes to an end a week today?

Baroness Amos: My Lords, first, the SADC standards were set by SADC parliamentarians. We have urged acceptance of those standards by SADC governments. Independently of that, we as an international community must be absolutely clear about the norms and standards by which we will judge whether the people of Zimbabwe have had an opportunity to exercise their democratic right in an environment free from harassment and intimidation.
	I am conscious of the time, and should like to address all the questions that have been raised.
	The Government of Zimbabwe know that they are heading for international isolation if they continue on their unsustainable course. I hope that noble Lords will agree that we act most effectively when we act together. Several noble Lords, including the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, talked about the importance of Zimbabwe's economy. Unemployment is at 60 per cent and rising; inflation is at 86 per cent and is expected to reach 100 per cent this year. The Government of Zimbabwe's policies are extremely damaging to business and investor confidence—both within Zimbabwe and across the southern African region.
	The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, asked about smart sanctions and mentioned recent US legislation in particular. That was picked up by several other noble Lords. The US legislation does not mean immediate sanctions. It invites the Administration to consult on and co-ordinate international action against Zimbabwe. As such, it puts significant further pressure on Zimbabwe's ruling party. It means that the Administration can use smart sanctions if they wish to. But the passing of the legislation does not mean an automatic move to smart sanctions.
	The noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord St John of Bletso and Lord Wallace of Saltaire, asked about our relationship with the EU and its work. Since March, the EU has tried to conduct a dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe. Our approach did not work, so we had no option but to consider stronger measures. Article 96 was the logical next step. It is a formal mechanism that sends the Government of Zimbabwe a clear political signal and gives them 75 days to address EU concerns. Article 96 does not mean sanctions. It provides an implicit threat, but the purpose is to find solutions with Zimbabwe and a return to Cotonou's essential elements: human rights, democracy and the rule of law. A meeting under Article 96 for dialogue with the Government of Zimbabwe is scheduled for 19th December.
	With respect to general sanctions, we will consider other measures as and when appropriate. We consider concerted international action to be the most effective. UN sanctions binding on all member states are the most effective option, but those would require consensus in the Security Council, which is unrealistic at this stage. However, efforts under way in the Commonwealth and the EU will receive our continued support.
	The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, and the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, all spoke about food shortages and the possibility of a humanitarian crisis. It is already clear that Zimbabwe will be seriously short of staple grains. Those shortages have been made more certain by Zimbabwe's imposition of untenable price controls. The government confirmed to donors on 23rd October that they face a major shortfall in maize and appealed for donor support.
	The United Nations Development Programme is preparing a package of measures for consideration by the donor community later this week. The Department for International Development and other donors pre-empted the Government of Zimbabwe's appeal and are providing supplementary feedings through NGOs to children and adults in the worst affected areas. There are obvious concerns that any donor response reaches the needy and will not be used for political purposes.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and the noble Lords, Lord Redesdale, Lord Avebury, Lord Wallace of Saltaire and Lord Howell of Guildford, raised the subject of asylum. Members of the MDC have been seeking asylum in the United Kingdom. However, we have received no representations from the MDC on the issue. As far as we know, it is satisfied that our procedures for assessing asylum claims from Zimbabwe is fair. I will write to noble Lords on that subject, as time does not permit me to go into more detail.
	The noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, spoke about some difficulties facing other countries on the African continent. Noble Lords will know that the Government are committed to working in partnership with leaders in Africa who are committed to reform, to forge a new partnership to support sustainable development on the continent. That will not be easy, but that is our commitment. The comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, about the regional conflict in the Great Lakes region and Zimbabwe's relationship to it, are important to remember.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, spoke powerfully about the situation facing journalists. We protested to the Government of Zimbabwe in the strongest possible terms about remarks describing some journalists as terrorists. That is clearly absurd. We will continue to make our views clear, but, in reply to the noble Lord's specific question, I am not aware of the Government of Zimbabwe having blocked access to external broadcasting services with which they do not agree.
	The noble Lord, Lord Blaker, asked me if we were considering what we would do if the MDC won the election. Of course, we are considering all possibilities. I thank the noble Lord for his sympathy for my position, but I hope that noble Lords recognise that my shoulders are broad enough to carry the weight of criticism from the Government of Zimbabwe and President Mugabe. As the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, said in a slightly different context, it is like water off a duck's back.
	In a more serious vein, I thank noble Lords for their recognition of the Government's work in seeking to bring about real change in Zimbabwe and their kind words on my role in that work.
	In conclusion, let me make our position absolutely clear. The Government have worked tirelessly to build international consensus. We have made our views about violence and intimidation known in the strongest possible terms. The Government have not been apologetic in our handling of relations with the Government of Zimbabwe. I have sought to ensure that Members of this House understand that there are limits to our influence with the Government of Zimbabwe and that is why we have said consistently that it is important that Zimbabwe's neighbours need to make their views known to the government. That is now happening.
	Let us not forget that our concern should be for the welfare of all Zimbabweans. The vast majority of the victims of violence are black Zimbabweans. At least 32 have been killed this year. Thousands have been attacked and threatened. Many live in towns and have no connection with the land occupation. Their only interest is a job, enough food to feed their families and the desire for their opinions to count. They are the reason we remain committed to finding long-term solutions to Zimbabwe's problems. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that the people of Zimbabwe must find a solution. They have a right to matter in their own country.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, time allows me only most warmly to thank all noble Lords who have spoken, especially my noble friend Lord Carrington, for their interesting and valuable comments. I have only two comments to make. First, I should have declared a double interest. I have family in Zimbabwe but I also have a number of African friends whom I knew in the pre-UDI days and for whom I care.
	Secondly, I regard the debate as a message to the people of Zimbabwe, not to Mr Mugabe. I believe that that is worth sending. We are sending it and I hope that they will hear and know when times are better that we were their friends when times were bad. In that context, there can be no possible excuse for not giving asylum, whether or not the MDC has decided we have been fair. We must offer that asylum and give it.
	My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Care Homes

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: rose to call attention to the state of local authority funding for care home places; and to move for Papers.
	My Lords, the subject is sadly topical and one could wish that it was not. I am grateful to those who have indicated that they wish to take part in this short debate because there is a wealth of experience in this House.
	At the beginning, I want to outline the character of the current financial position in social care at the national level in England. The Local Government Association estimates that between the current level of government support to social services, which fund much of the social care industry, and the true level of expenditure required to meet local need, there is a shortfall of no less than #1 billion.
	At local level, where it is all happening, or sometimes not happening, this is a cross-party issue. The Chancellor's recent Budget report elicited much regret and disappointment in the field at the inadequacy of the resources.
	To take an example from the South West, local authorities there estimate that the shortfall in their region alone is some #70 million. Throughout the country a similar picture is seen; and that is irrespective of the political composition of the authorities, of whether they are county councils or unitary authorities, and no matter how high-performing or innovative they are.
	There are, however, some particular and additional pressures facing authorities in the South East. That is not only because of higher costs, but also because of the purchasing advantages that the London boroughs have over those authorities with boundaries which are contiguous to London.
	Those are both matters to which I shall return, but I hope first to illustrate the general situation by drawing on our experience in Kent, where I am lucky enough to live. I suppose I should accordingly declare an interest because although neither I nor my family is likely to be applying for these facilities in the near future, one can never tell.
	It is helpful to look at Kent's position because the county council is recognised by the Audit Commission as being at the forefront of innovation. Nevertheless, its experience, for example, in relation to hospital discharges delayed by bed shortages in care homes is serious enough. In November, 173 beds in National Health Service hospitals were blocked in that way. The regional average for the South East is worse.
	There is great concern in Kent as to how the authority is to meet the needs of those older people who need support, either to continue to live at home or to return home after an unforeseen admission to hospital, as well as those who need to move permanently into a residential or nursing home. It is not an exaggeration to say that in Kent we are facing a crisis in the social care market.
	I speak of a market because, like most local authorities, Kent County Council has to rely heavily on the private sector for the provision of nursing and residential care for people who can no longer look after themselves.
	Of the total of about 17,000 beds that the private sector still provides for adults, the county council buys about one-third. Across the country a thriving independent care home sector is pivotal to the effectiveness of the overall healthcare system. A further one-third of those beds is paid for privately. In the South East generally and in Kent in particular, a high proportion of elderly residents are having to pay for their own care. Even when they do receive council support, relatives often have to make up the difference between what homes charge and what local authorities can afford to pay. The remaining one-third is bought by other local authorities or health service bodies from London and the Home Counties.
	The trouble can be very simply put. Kent, to continue giving that as an example, is funded for these purposes only to an extent that leaves a substantial shortfall between what the council can afford to pay the homes and what the homes need in order to be commercially viable. The Government's funding formula for residential care of the elderly is lower per head in the South East than anywhere else in England, even though charges are higher in the South East than in any region other than London. That is of course partly because costs there are higher but it is partly because the proportion of standard spending assessment paid, for example, to Kent in grant from central government has fallen by 2 per cent in the past four years. Yet SSAs are intended to measure need to spend and they determine levels of Exchequer support for council spending.
	The fact that we are not in the presence of some sellers' ramp may be seen from the number of home providers who have gone out of business in Kent alone. The East Kent Health Authority has suffered a loss of nursing beds of about 25 per cent since 1999. The figure for the West Kent Health Authority is 11 per cent. Between the two authorities, the overall decline is 17 per cent and they cover the greater part of the county. Not all beds that are on offer are available to the county council because they cost more than the council can afford. Therefore the loss of contracted beds to the county council is of the order of 21 per cent. Nationally, I believe that 50,000 beds have been lost since Labour came into office.
	Home providers' own rising costs, which have been fuelled by the strength of the economy in the South East, have been added to by the expense of the Government's admirable strict new statutory standards for providers and new obligations placed on employers. However, no additional funding has been made available to pay for those requirements.
	Next year will see the transfer to local authorities of responsibility for the care of people who previously had preserved rights to income support. Yet no additional funding is being held out. For residential care, the independent sector calculates that charges of #300 per week are the minimum required to enable homes to stay in business. Yet to bring fees up to that figure from the present average of around #260 per week paid by the county council would cost the authority an additional #6.5 million per year.
	For nursing home care the position is even more dire. The average fees presently paid by the county council are #376 per week. The independent sector states that continued viability will require #500 per week. Yet even to increase the present average paid by the authority by #100, to #476 per week, would cost an extra #7 million per year.
	The Strategic Director of Social Services for Kent, Mr Peter Gilroy, points to additional costs for the support of independent providers of domiciliary care to enable them to meet the higher standards and the increased expectations of older people. Taken together, those cost pressures mean that Kent County Council will have to find between #16.9 million and #17 million extra.
	The story does not stop even there. London boroughs receive SSA typically on a far more generous scale than Kent. This year, for example, SSAs provide for #351 per person per week for residents in Kent aged over 65 years, while the comparable provision in Islington, for example, is #917. While I accept that some of the difference can be attributed to higher levels of deprivation—although Kent itself has too many deprived areas—some of that difference in funding is enabling London boroughs to place their clients in homes in Kent, with obvious consequences for the bargaining position of the less well resourced county council. For example, 1,700 looked-after children have been placed in Kent by other councils.
	I suppose that it is hardly surprising that the grievous state of so many hospitals nowadays should be the primary focus for government attention, but the pressure to vacate beds in itself increases the pressure on nursing and residential beds outside the hospitals. When rising pressure is applied to a falling number of beds, the inevitable result will be longer delays before hospital beds can be cleared of patients who no longer need them, but who cannot manage on their own.
	As the Continuing Care Conference has stated, it is important that care is provided within an enduring, sustainable and long-term care policy framework, not a series of short-term, politically expedient policies. The recently announced settlement for social services appears superficially to be generous, as it puts further money into the care of the most frail and vulnerable people in our society. But the difficulty with this additional investment is that much of it is hypothecated to specific new tasks and so still leaves the core services with insufficient money. I am afraid that the expectation is that the recent settlement will lead to further and greater problems in funding social services over the coming year. The chairman of the Local Government Association, Sir Jeremy Beacham, is a well-known Labour supporter. His comments on the Chancellor's Budget Statement illustrate that these are cross-party anxieties.
	Perhaps I may finish my remarks with a further illustration from Kent. The county council is faced with a stark choice either to make an unacceptably high increase in precept or to make large savings which inevitably will impact on the elderly and the vulnerable. It is no good the Government willing the end in this field if they are not prepared to will the means.
	For my part, I hope that the Minister will take advantage of this brief debate to show that the Government have taken on board the grave position in this area and will meet the urgent need with no less urgent action. I beg to move for Papers.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, the whole House will welcome the timely debate introduced by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden. I think that he is a neophyte to the little gang of noble Lords who congregate on these occasions. After the deliberations last year on the Care Standards Bill, I think that they know each other's views. Having said that, the noble and learned Lord is a most welcome neophyte and we look forward to his continued presence in future debates.
	I wish to make a number of brief, sharp points. First, in the care home industry, we need to encourage a flourishing private sector. We need it because between 1996 and 2010 demand for places will grow at the rate of 1 per cent per year. Even on the most optimistic of assumptions, at the point when the time-horizon of the Royal Commission on long-term care expires in 2050 we shall need to double the number of places. We shall need to do so because direct local authority provision is hugely more expensive than that of the private sector. At the time when the Royal Commission reported, on average a local authority place cost #360 per week for residential care, compared with #238 per week in the private sector. The Audit Commission found that the standards of local authority provision were no higher than those of the private sector.
	Secondly, this industry—if I may call it that—is faced with a disastrous squeeze. That has been the case for a number of years. Fees have been falling behind costs, which have been and will continue to be greatly elevated by the 11 per cent increase in the national minimum wage recently introduced. The current shortfall in fees for publicly funded residents is authoritatively estimated by the industry to be running at between #50 and #100 per week per resident—that is the national shortfall; it may be worse in Kent—which translates into a 30 per cent to 50 per cent shortfall.
	Thirdly, as a result, care homes are resorting to increasingly desperate expedients to remain in business. I shall categorise them. Desperate expedient one concerns the provision of free nursing care so generously introduced by the Government. Many homes are trying to use that money to subsidise the fees, so residents will be no better off. That is not how it was intended the money should be used. Parliament did not vote for that.
	Desperate expedient two is to sting the private payer in order to subsidise the public payer. Care providers charge the public sector the marginal cost for care, while the gap between that and the full average cost is met by the private fee payer. An excellent firm which I have looked at recently, Westminster Care, charges the average local authority a fee of #370 but charges #535 for the average self payer.
	Fourthly, the desperate expedients I have outlined are not proving sufficient to enable care homes to stay in business. Laing & Buisson, the authoritative source in this area, estimates that 25,000 beds have been lost over the past two years. It believes that a similar number will be lost over the coming five years. Others in the industry think that the situation is even worse, that the crisis is accelerating and that the loss will amount to 5 per cent of all beds over the coming two years. Such losses do not imply only financial costs—on occasion some of those concerned with these matters are accused of being spokesmen for the Treasury. When a care home closes, there is also a human cost. We know that when an older person is moved from one home to another, very often they die shortly thereafter. Thus finance and humanity point in the same direction.
	I have come to my fifth point. I regret that Members on the Liberal Democrat Benches will now stop nodding in agreement with my words. I am sure, however, that they anticipate what I shall say. The situation demonstrates the absolute futility and absurdity of the majority recommendation of the Royal Commission, of which I was a member, franked, I am afraid, by noble Lords opposite, that care should be provided free for all. If money is put into that provision, then it will not be available to address the terrible shortfall that ultimately will mean little care available to anyone.
	I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, who, as chairman of the Royal Commission, has a deep knowledge of these matters, is not in his place to dispute the point with me. I look forward greatly to debating the subject with him one day. However, we have not yet managed to coincide on a platform. Every pound spent on free care is one pound less available to keep the sector thriving, in business and providing decent levels of care. I have in reserve attacks for certain other groups of people. However, there is some good news—I pay tribute to my noble friend here—which is that the Government have at last noticed that the position is unsustainable. As I remember it, there was a kind of denial phase; then there was a phase of, XYes, we realise that, but we cannot get any money to do anything about it"; and now we are moving into a better and more open phase.
	There are a number of hopeful signs. One is that the agreement with the private sector, Building Capacity and Partnership in Care, produced in October 2001 by my noble friend's department, sets out better ways of contracting for services which can provide a combination of viability, efficiency and better services.
	The second hopeful sign is the hike of 5.4 per cent in the money available for residential and domiciliary care to local authorities contained in the revenue support grant settlement. I have seen all kinds of figures as to what this hike represents. The Government's own document states that the figure is #175.9 million and the figure of #300 million has appeared in some newspapers. Whatever it is, it is a good deal better than the figures we have seen in the past.
	To their credit, the Government are now concerned about profitability in the industry and are studying the matter. It is to be hoped that where study starts today, money will flow tomorrow.
	I said that I would attack more than one group of people, and here is the bad news. The Government are planning—I use the phrase hoping not to shock any noble Lord—to kick the sector in the goolies with the new standards that they propose to introduce next April. I am a great defender of the British Civil Service, to which we owe a great deal—this House contains many fine examples of that institution—but when the document Fit for the Future first appeared, I simply could not believe my eyes. It was as though a jobsworth at the Department of Health had plucked from a shelf ancient standards based on the days—they were my heydays in politics—when regulation was all. We did not worry about the cost to the private sector nor its effects. The great thing was to have regulations that bureaucrats could impose on private industry. This is a document for the 1970s; it is not a document for the new millennium.
	If anyone should think that I am exaggerating, they should look at the suggestions for room sizes for old people and consider how the industry is supposed to economically convert existing homes to provide the new metricated room sizes. They will find their confidence in the British Government shattered because this is a policy to destroy enterprise and standards. In the long run, it will generally reduce standards under the guise of increasing them. These were Bourbons among bureaucrats. They had forgotten nothing from the 1970s and learnt nothing from the 1970s.
	I do not know how Ministers allowed this to slip past their eyes—it must have been a momentary inattention in the excitement of the many good things they were doing—but they woke up when MPs signed Early Day Motions as their constituents pointed out to them that they were about to be forced out of business. This was an all-party matter. My party is sometimes accused of being a regulatory party and the Conservative Party of being a deregulatory party, but people from all sides could see lousy regulation when it was displayed before their eyes.
	I know that the Government have shifted quite a bit on the issue. I pay tribute to John Hutton, the former Minister, who was very active in bringing about that shift. We no longer have bedroom size, we have recreational facilities size—and that is progress. But there are still ludicrously damaging remnants around. For example, all facilities are supposed to be checked by occupational therapists. That would be all right if there was not such a major national shortage of occupational therapists, with no way of remedying the situation.
	Again typical of the numerically-driven rather than practical regulation, there is to be a set ratio of 80:20 of single and shared rooms. That would be absolutely wonderful—I would love everyone to have their own room; I would love everyone to have their own suite of rooms—but if there is no money to pay for it, there will be a bad result because there are simply not enough rooms.
	The new regulations are at present out for consultation. I hope that the Government remain in listening mode. The costs of the regulations—on top of the squeeze that has already got the industry into such trouble—are frightening. The banks are starting to say, XWe will not lend money on residential homes. No, you cannot borrow to keep the business going. We do not like the security any more". People are saying increasingly, XI am not going to convert my home. I can sell it for more money as a private home for someone to live in than by staying in business". Some people are, for their pains, criticised as being profiteers. It is a curious situation for the Government to stop someone turning in a decent profit and then complain that they are profiteers when they refuse to go on working their guts out for nothing.
	Everything that is being done to help on the local authority side—and I welcome and pay tribute to the tremendous change in attitude—is in danger of being spoilt by these regulations. When they come to the other place, we will find that many Members oppose them. So will many in this House. I say to the Government that many of their most loyal supporters will oppose the regulations unless there is further change. I trust the Government. Therefore I trust that, even at this late hour, they will see sense. If perchance they do not—and no doubt there is room for compromise—I do not believe that this House will shirk its duty to pay true scrutiny to the legislation. If we do not, we will be conniving in a situation which could leave—with the very best intentions, I freely admit—old, frail and vulnerable citizens literally with nowhere to go.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is a timely and important debate. Neophyte or not, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on initiating it. I also congratulate him on eliciting a speech from the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, the first half of which I agreed with wholeheartedly—for a change.
	It is vital that proper resources are allocated to the residential care of older people, not only to ensure that there is a quality and quantity of residential care available to those who need it, but also in terms of the knock-on effect on the NHS if there are insufficient care places and bed blocking occurs.
	As the noble and learned Lord pointed out, the number of care beds is shrinking dramatically. Fifty thousand beds have been lost in the past five years; 30,000 of those in the past three years. In some parts of the country, there has been a continual fall in care beds over the past five years. One in five beds occupied by people over 75 is now blocked because of delays in discharging.
	The problem of bed blocking is particularly bad in the South East, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out. Ten per cent of all acute beds are blocked in the South East region by delayed transfers from hospital. The cost of bed blocking to the NHS has recently been estimated to be as high as #3 billion.
	The problem is not only about the numbers of beds. The King's Fund report, Future Imperfect?, published in June 2001, commented on huge problems being experienced by the sector in maintaining quality. There is a major recruitment and retention crisis, together with a worrying picture of inadequate training for care and support workers. The report stated:
	XImmediate action is needed to avoid a catastrophe"—
	and estimated that a further #700 million of extra resources was needed by social services each year. However, social services cash is rising by only 3.5 per cent per year compared to health spending rises of 6 per cent.
	There has been some acknowledgement of this problem by the Government. They have allocated #300 million to end bed blocking—#100 million this year to local authorities and #200 million next year. Their target is to unblock 1,000 beds this winter and 2,300 by 2002-03. XThis winter" is now upon us. How many beds have been unblocked so far in using this cash? How much of it has actually been spent to date, and to whom is the funding going?
	Even if the funding is being spent and if it is going in the right direction, even Labour-supporting local authority leaders such as Sir Jeremy Beecham say that it is too little, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, pointed out. Quite apart from the King's Fund figures, some estimates say that three times that amount is needed to stop the decline in the care sector.
	Then there is the issue of personal care and nursing care, and the extent to which they should be funded by government. We have debated this on numerous occasions in this House, not least when the Health and Social Care Bill was before the House. The view on these Benches has always been that it is wholly unjust that people with Alzheimer's and similar chronic conditions are treated differently from those who are regarded as having treatable illnesses.
	As part of our partnership agreement with Labour in Scotland, the Scottish Executive, to its enormous credit, took the decision to fund all long-term personal care. The sky has not fallen in, as some Members on the Labour Benches would have us believe. Money for free nursing care is, frankly, inadequate. Depending on a person's condition, nursing care costs—

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord noted that the first action of the new Labour leader in Scotland was to re-examine that policy; and those who know have no doubt that he would like to dump it but is being stopped from doing so, and thus saving the Scottish exchequer from bankruptcy, by pressure put on him by those in the noble Lord's party.

Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, that just shows the benefit of having the Liberal Democrats in government in Scotland. I am sure that the noble Lord's words will be taken very seriously by the Scottish electorate.
	Depending on a person's condition of health, nursing care costs are met in rising bands of #35, #70 and #110. What level of nursing care can those amounts actually buy? In many areas of the country the bands do not cover real nursing costs. In London and the South East, costs can be up to 80 per cent higher than this. Furthermore, what guarantee is there that self-funding residents will actually receive the extra cash? That was a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey.
	As it is, the whole process of carrying out assessments looks as though it is getting off to a slow start. These need to be carried out by Christmas. Health authorities are faced with an impossible task and local authorities are having to guess the amount of nursing care which is appropriate. No wonder the head of policy at Help the Aged commented:
	XThe whole thing is going to end in tears. The operation looks a complete mess".
	And a group of major charities representing older people, including Age Concern and Help the Aged, have described the scheme as,
	Xunfair, unworkable and a broken promise to the elderly".
	In the face of this, can the Minister give assurances on progress to date? Will assessment targets be met? Will costs be covered? Will residents receive what they are due?
	There is a further problem with insisting that not all personal care is free; namely, the need for people on low to middle incomes to sell their homes. Some 160,000 people have had to do this since the Government took power in 1997.
	Granted, the Health and Social Care Act, which completed its passage earlier this year, now provides for loans and deferred sale provisions. But loans still have to be repaid after death and property has to be sold. That causes particular hardship to former carers who are living in the family home. Also, such loans are available only to those with assets of less than #18,500.
	There are some excellent care home providers. There are also some bad ones. My honourable friend Paul Burstow, referring to a recent survey, demonstrated how 30 per cent of residents in care homes are regularly prescribed anti-psychotic medication and that they receive four times as many prescriptions as older people living in their own homes.
	Our aim must be to make sure that, in the way in which we allocate resources and in the standards that we set, we ensure that the best homes are allowed to thrive and the worst wither away. At present, however, all the pressure seems to be on local authorities to do the exact opposite. In fact, many of them seem to pay less for care in private homes than they do in their own homes. Evidence is accumulating that self-funding residents are paying higher fees than they should to make up for these shortfalls.
	One of the key findings of the King's Fund report, Future Imperfect?, was that there is a Xdamaging preoccupation" among commissioning bodies with containing costs rather than promoting quality in care services. The situation is compounded by the fact that higher standards are being introduced as a result of the Care Standards Act and its regulations. We have heard that a large number of closures may be necessary because of the way in which the regulations insist on shaft lifts rather than stair lifts for communal areas. Is that correct? On these Benches we firmly support the new regulations, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey. But if the regulations are to come into effect, how will the cost of work such as this be recognised in commissioning by local authorities?
	The answer to these issues lies to a large extent in additional resources for local authorities commissioning residential care. The King's Fund was not alone in saying that social service allocations should rise at the same rate as the increases for the NHS. In addition to commissioning care home places, it is vital that resources are made available to allow older people to stay at home where possible through good home care services. Some of the models which allow that to happen—such as the Rapid Response homes service, created in partnership between Sheffield City Council and the health authorities and trusts in that city, are excellent.
	Rehabilitation services are also crucial. The Government have promised considerable resources in this area. But many of us are concerned about the restrictive definition of Xintermediate services", which means that such services can only be provided free outside an NHS hospital for six weeks.
	There are other matters of concern. There needs to be a fundamental review of the NVQ in care work, and action to ensure that care workers receive the training that they need. Commissioning bodies must take training costs into account in setting prices.
	Finally, to return to former battlegrounds, we must adopt an integrated, holistic approach to health and social care, so that cost shunting which leads to bed blocking does not occur. There needs to be an appreciation that health and social care are two sides of the same coin. There must be an end to the uncertainty and delays when older people are due to be discharged from hospital, caused by the fact that NHS care is free whereas personal care is not.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew for introducing this important debate. I am taking part because I have followed with growing concern developments in care home provision in Kent—where, like the noble and learned Lord, I too am lucky to live.
	I want to approach the subject from a regional angle. Debate about the current situation has been in the public domain in Kent for some time. Some valuable observations have been brought to my attention—observations which I am sure are not unique to Kent and which may help to put more general points into context.
	Like other councils, Kent County Council relies on purchasing services from independent sector providers. Market demand for care homes is high in Kent. The county has a large independent sector for social care and Kent County Council purchases only around one-third of the 17,000 beds. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew said, a further third is paid for privately, and the final third is bought by other local authorities and health services from London and other Home Counties.
	The number of nursing beds in Kent has been reduced by 17 per cent over the past two years. For several months it has been almost impossible for the county council to place people in nursing homes at all. Few homes are prepared to take new patients—or Xclients" as they might appropriately be called—at the prices which the council can afford.
	A council's ability to pay reasonable prices for care services is governed by the funding available to it. This funding is subject to significant regional variation. During 1999 and 2000, the North East received about #4,800 per head; London #5,000 per head; and the South East #3,700 per head.
	In spite of such variation, the situation in Kent is not unusual. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, mentioned the Laing and Buisson figures. The widening gap for councils in the South East from the rest of the country comes on top of a growing national under-funding of social services. Over 80 per cent of local authorities over-spent their budgets in social services last year. At present local councils are spending 10.2 per cent more on social services than the government standard spending assessment. While the pressure is most apparent in care of the elderly, most authorities' overspend is in children's services. Nevertheless, the fact remains that local authorities' main problem with regard to care home places is underfunding. They are unable to contract for care at levels which reflect realistic care home costs.
	It is a familiar story. However, there are issues unique to the care homes and domiciliary service industry which have exacerbated the problem of general underfunding. Difficulties are faced by local authorities and care providers alike.
	Care homes and nursing homes are closing for a number of reasons. For example, new employment legislation has had a significant impact on the industry. Strangely, the inability of many homes to recruit and retain staff is to some extent due to economic growth. Care homes are unable to match the pay being offered in the retail sector and elsewhere. The recent King's Fund report, Future Imperfect? quotes the Association for Residential Care. It states:
	XIn some parts of the country providers say that the only people applying for vacancies are those that McDonald's and Tesco have already rejected, and if employed they come with high . . . training needs.
	New government standards flowing from the Care Standards Act have placed new costs on the industry, yet no specific new funding has been made available to make up the shortfall. Many of the new standards are welcome. Everyone would like to see improved standards in nursing and residential care homes and domiciliary care services. But at what cost? The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, in a powerful speech, drew the House's attention to the cost to homes of the regulations, and those homes are closing.
	The implications for hospital admissions and discharges have already been mentioned. On 9th October government figures suggested that approximately 6,000 beds were blocked by patients well enough to be discharged. Less than a week later, the Daily Mail suggested that the true figures was 100 times higher than the figures announced by the Government. This has led to increasing numbers of operations being cancelled. The figure has risen by over a third since last year.
	The implications for the elderly and others needing long-term care are also clear. The element of choice is fast disappearing from the care homes industry. People will go where the local authority can afford to accommodate them. Some families will pay for care themselves if finances permit them to do so, although, with the care homes industry becoming increasingly a seller's market, this will become an option for only a few.
	While specific local difficulties require local solutions, there seems to be a general impression that until the true costs of providing care are recognised little progress can be made. An objective assessment of what care costs per head would afford us a realistic estimate of appropriate fee levels.
	The picture seems gloomy but the willingness of local authorities to work with central government is most encouraging. Local authorities have in the past demonstrated how effectively they use one-off injections of money. For example, winter allowances have had a wholly positive impact on hospital throughput. However, local authorities have stressed that funding will be successful only if it is direct. Every 1 per cent increase in fees paid to independent care providers by Kent County Council amounts to #2.4 million per annum. That money has to be found somewhere; and it has to be found quickly.
	All this is familiar ground. What is unfamiliar is the likely severity of the situation. The future promises additional pressures for local authorities and care providers. In April 2002 local authorities will be responsible for preserved rights residents, taking the proportion of care homes residents having their fees paid by local authorities to over 60 per cent. And we should not forget those older people who will continue paying for personal care rather than care in a residential home.
	The care homes sector and local authorities face difficult times. Let us hope that an accurate assessment of the real cost of providing care will ensure that those who need it will receive it and to the highest possible standard.

Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for introducing the debate. As noble Lords have said, this is not a new problem. It was indeed forecast because it is a demand-led service and the people who are getting older are in the system now. The problem does not arise unexpectedly. It was building up through the 1990s and has grown worse in London and the South East, as several noble Lords have said, because homes cost more, the alternative use of homes is greater and the care staff cost more money. It has been a major problem facing councillors of every political party. It is not a political argument at this level because every councillor must face the same problem.
	In Oxford, we have cut from our budget all the discretionary services we can think of in order to feed the money into social services. But that process has to stop somewhere; otherwise roads disintegrate through potholes and other services get into a state of dereliction. One can only continue so far. There is room for increased efficiency. We have increased our efficiency but not sufficiently to close the gap.
	Independent care home owners protest very loudly, sometimes to me, that we treat them differently from the people in our own homes. We still have some of our own homes although they will be externalised. However, the same people are not being compared. We house the more difficult and more objectionable people. I am convinced that the answer does not lie in comparisons between public and private sector homes.
	The problem of finding care for the elderly mentally infirm is particularly acute. Some of those who are cared for are Xwarehoused"—as I term it—in homes in which they are over-prescribed with anti-psychotic drugs. One could say simply that they have been abandoned. That does go on and it is a dispiriting experience to visit such homes.
	Local authorities need long-term funding to enter into contracts with the private sector which the private sector knows will stand up: they are bankable; they can invest money on that basis. At present that is not so. We pay between #100 and #150 a week below the market rate for the remaining care homes in the county. The number is diminishing. That means that an elderly person has often to be sent out of county, away from their friends and families. There are many devices but it means effectively that the old person is abandoned. That is a problem, which places a huge burden on carers as many of them go on caring for people rather than sending them away. I have the figures for Oxfordshire of the number of beds blocked in acute hospitals. They amount to between 50 and 60. People could either go to a nursing home if there was a bed for them, or to their own homes if the county council could provide satisfactory domiciliary care. We can do neither. I had a letter from the director of social services last week saying that the county council was tightening the eligibility criteria for care in the person's own home. The words may sound nice but in reality they mean that people will be given inadequate care.
	This issue is an incubus around the neck of the National Health Service, as well as being dispiriting for people in hospital and their carers. I play in a brass band, and I am reminded that two years ago virtually the whole town turned up because the community hospital in the town was to be closed by the Government. They did not close it in the end; they closed one ward somewhere else and two others instead. At the same time as care homes have been closed, the Government have been closing community hospitals as well.
	I do not believe that this problem is separate from the problems in the National Health Service. The two services work closely together. It is entirely a question of the availability of doctors, nurses or high technical equipment in hospitals. The John Radcliffe is full of the stuff. The hospital does not have enough staff but it has plenty of high-tech equipment. We want to take people out of the hospital system and put into proper care, or to support them in their own homes, but we need more money to do that. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, referred to over-regulation of homes, and, like him, I shall look at that issue carefully. We need to pay care home owners a reasonable price for the service that they offer, whether to the elderly, the mentally infirm, or whoever. If we are not careful, people will not provide that service. It is time that the Government woke up.
	I shall quote something that I heard this morning, which is:
	XIt is winter all the year round in caring for the elderly nowadays".

Baroness Barker: My Lords, I begin my speech with the customary declaration that I work for Age Concern. I join other Members of your Lordships' House in thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, for giving us the welcome opportunity to have this short, but valuable, high quality debate.
	I thank the noble and learned Lord for a rare opportunity to focus on the issue of social care. All too often, we concentrate on the far more dramatic and emotive problems of the NHS. The diminution of social care services such as bathing, domiciliary care or handy person schemes do not command the headlines in the same way as waiting times for surgery or time spent on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. But they are clearly connected.
	In many ways care home closures are but one manifestation of the much broader problem of the chronic under-investment in social care. We need to look at that issue before we can get to the heart of the matter, which is demand. We know from the Government's own figures that underfunding of social care has reached unprecedented levels. The Department of Health's publication, Personal Social Services Current Expenditure in England: 1999-2000 shows that gross expenditure by social services on older people in 1999/2000 was #5,640 million gross and net expenditure following fees and charges was #4,160 million. While the Government have provided a real-terms increase in funding levels for social services departments via the SSA and special grants, the average increase over the next three years will be 3.5 per cent as opposed to the 5.9 per cent increase for the NHS.
	Moreover, the data from the NHS Performance Assessment Framework returns show that the costs of providing home care, day care and residential care are rising more quickly than SSAs. In the current financial year, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, said, there will be expenditure of #1 billion by social services over and above government provision. That is a staggering figure. It is particularly astonishing when one considers that for most of the last decade, since the passage of the NHS and Community Care Act, services have been focused on those with the highest level of need and eligibility criteria have been ever more tightly drawn. Perhaps that policy is not working.
	My noble friend Lord Bradshaw eloquently explained how local authorities cannot sustain that level of expenditure. We know from everything we read that when cuts have to be made, services for older people are always first in line, well ahead of anything else—even within social services. The consequences to local authorities of not funding children's services, for example, are so much more severe. Your Lordships will know that the race is on to implement the NSF for older people. The people in social services departments in health authorities are waiting for NSFs for other client groups to hit them. Most social services departments are also waiting for the findings of the Victoria Climbie investigation to put the re-emphasis on children's services.
	It is important to stress that pressures on local authorities come not only from the extent to which SSAs are being outstripped by rising costs. When new resources are made available, they are increasingly via special short-term programmes. I shall not go into the plethora of the different funding sources, but one of the most precious resources in any social care agency is time. The amount of time spent chasing resources, in meetings and on developing partnerships is rising dramatically. It is not clear that that always manifests itself in better client care.
	The Government's greatest input into the residential and nursing care sector has been intermediate care money. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, of the Treasury, say Xwhatever the figure is". Throughout the passage of the NHS and Community Care Act, many noble Lords asked about intermediate care funding. We were never given a clear answer. There is an additional figure of #300 million. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, will agree on that one. The figure is concentrated on the 50 local authorities with the most severe bed-blocking problems. It is not money to be spent across the country.
	From the outset there has been uncertainty about intermediate care. Now, several months on, it is right to ask how the system is working. What mechanisms are in place to track the use of intermediate care moneys? What mechanisms are in place to check whether such moneys have been diverted to acute services? If such moneys have been diverted to acute care, what remedies do social care agencies have as they seek to reach the targets set by departments? What mechanisms are in place to evaluate whether a maximum of six weeks rehabilitation effectively meets older people's care needs and whether such short-term placements can be sustained by nursing homes?
	Those may be the inquiries of a social care anorak, but I believe that the transparency of that funding is essential, especially now as pooled budgets and Section 31 partnerships become more widespread. To put it another way, if social services turn up at the table in a care trust with #1 billion of debt, who will meet that deficit? I suspect that the answer is users and carers.
	Turning specifically to the issue of care homes, it is clear from all the figures quoted this evening, especially from Laing and Buisson, that there is a huge problem. About 16,000 care home beds were lost during 2000 and 8,000 private residential nursing homes were closed. The figures for the year before are similar.
	Care home occupancy rates have increased by 3 per cent. In April 2001, nursing home occupancy averaged 91.3 per cent. Despite those increased occupancy rates, margins remain under pressure. We have talked about the way in which local authority baselines do not cover essential items such as staff salary increases. Following what the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, said, staff training is one of the key points on which we need to focus. During our discussions on the Health and Social Care Act 2001, the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, was brought in to give us all a going over one night. He talked eloquently about the disgrace of some of the places that he went to visit during his time as a member of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care of the Elderly. He is right that the fabric of the building does not determine the quality of the care, but the standard of the staff does. The Government should not compromise on standards, but if, in the dire situation that has been described tonight, only one thing can be saved, it ought to be the training of staff. Can the Minister tell us whether specific resources will be made available over the next three years to address that?
	In April this year, well before some people came along to think about it, Laing and Buisson forecast turbulence in the care market as a result of the Government's policy on the payment of nursing costs. Age Concern, which is my organisation, has begun to register the increases to personal care costs as a result of healthcare fees being paid by the Government. Given that that was not the intention of the Government's policy, how is the department going to monitor and remedy that situation?
	There is widespread evidence from many organisations, including the Alzheimer's Disease Society, that self-funded private patients and their relatives are increasingly being asked to pay top-up fees, regardless of whether they should. The Government have made it clear in their guidance under CRAG (LAC 2001/29) that in most situations, if the cost of a placement is above that normally paid by the local authority, it should not be for relatives to pick up the difference. How are the Government planning to make sure that their guidance is observed?
	Perhaps the most alarming aspect of the care home crisis is that touched on by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lords, Lord Astor of Hever and Lord Bradshaw. I may be about to upset those noble Lords present from Kent, but I do not see why the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, should have all the fun. I shall talk from the perspective of someone who works in London. The rate of care home closures in the South East is 4.6 per cent. That is significantly above average.
	However, there is another factor that is never covered in any of the research or briefing. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, and others have talked about the distress and the higher mortality rates of older people who are moved when homes close. In some areas of the country, including some London boroughs, there are either no homes at all or no homes that are willing or able to take people at local authority rates. I was talking recently to an older person who lives in an inner London borough. He said, XYou know, I've got friends who have had to go into a home. But the thing is there aren't no homes here. They've all been put in places like Bournemouth. They don't know anybody there because they lived here all their life. We can't afford to go and visit them, it's too expensive. You can't just drop in for a game of dominoes. You know, they're just wasting away down there".
	It is a well known fact that involvement in social activities is as important to life expectancy as is healthy living. People with strong social networks live longer. That is a key point in rehabilitation. I question whether intermediate care can be successful if it takes place miles away from a person's social network. I have not been able to uncover any research into the effects of extra-authority placements. I wonder whether any research has been done. If not, will the Minister look at that issue?
	The rate of new registrations is slowing down. They are not happening in high-cost areas, because people cannot afford to open. We know that the older population is becoming increasingly diverse. That means that the different types of unmet need will increase. For example, there are unlikely to be care homes catering especially for black and minority ethnic elderly people or for those from different cultural and religious minorities. That is a problem, because we know that high quality, added value care is provided when institutions are attached to such communities.
	I suspect that the Minister will make much of the Government's efforts to support people in their own homes. The figures from the social policy ageing information network suggest that the number of people supported in their own homes has been declining. Moreover, when the new domiciliary care regulations and the regulation of day care begin to bite, I suspect that the number of providers in those sectors will go down. That will increase demand in the residential sector.
	Over the past two years it has seemed that every month the NHS faces more regulations but receives increased resources, while the social care sector just faces ever more regulations. That policy will rebound. If the question of demand is to be tackled, the Government need to go back and look at low-tech solutions that help people to maintain their independence in their own home. The frequent cry from older people is, XI really would like a home help". Only one or two local authorities provide home helps, yet those low-tech services are among the most important in delaying admission to hospital or to social care.
	Finally, current comments about pension provision in the longer term make it seem alarmingly likely that many of us will reach our old age without sufficient private resources with which to pay for high-quality care. Perhaps, on the strength of today's gloomy debate, there will not be any high-quality care for us to pay for. In considering the economics of this turbulent sector, at least for the medium term the Government have to provide more funding for social care.

Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew deserves our thanks for having tabled a Motion of central importance and for having introduced it with his customary clarity and wisdom. Having listened to him, I wondered what more needed to be said. The answer is probably very little, especially in the wake of so many well-informed contributions from around the House. Nevertheless, in summing up the debate from these Benches, I have no hesitation in saying that my noble and learned friend has touched a decidedly raw nerve.
	While there is always a danger of making too free a use of emotive terms, I believe that throughout the country, but particularly in certain parts of it, we are facing what can properly be described as a crisis in the provision of social care for elderly people. That crisis has been looming gradually but visibly for the past couple of years or so.
	In that time, the Minister and I have enjoyed a number of exchanges on the issues confronting care homes, not least during the passage, last year, of the Care Standards Act 2000. I may be wrong, but, during those debates, I do not think that either he or his Department really accepted the gravity of the concerns that care home owners were collectively voicing. That situation may be changing; I hope so. Therefore, in concentrating the Minister's mind, as my noble friends and I hope to do today, I shall begin by picking up one or two key points.
	There is compelling evidence not only from individual local authorities but from independent bodies such as Laing and Buisson, which was cited by the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, that capacity in the residential care sector has been declining significantly for some time. Laing and Buisson has put the decline at just under 50,000 places since 1996, which represents a decrease of just under 9 per cent. One cannot generalise about that type of figure because the impact of the decline differs depending on where one is located in the country. In some parts, such as the North West, there are undoubtedly surplus beds; however, there are no surplus beds in the home counties, Cheshire, the West Midlands, North Yorkshire and many other areas. Last year alone, 4.5 per cent of care home places in the South East of England were lost. So in being sanguine about the extent of bed losses in a national context, as the Government have tended to be, it behoves them also to listen to what they are being told by individual regions.
	The pressures being felt by care home owners in individual regions are different in their intensity and their effect. Wage and cost pressures and staff recruitment difficulties vary considerably in different parts of the country. However, almost all those who are now experiencing severe financial problems will agree on one thing: the main cause of these problems is that local authorities are continuing to pay fee increases below the rate of inflation, thus leaving care homes with an income shortfall. Currently, two thirds of care home places are funded by local authorities. It is important, however, that that national statistic should not mask the detailed picture. Homes that can rely for most of their income on residents who can afford to pay the fees from their private means will not be greatly affected. Other homes catering principally for those of lesser means will be affected seriously. Those are the homes that are now having to take the painful decision of whether they can afford to stay open.
	My own county of Buckinghamshire provides one example of many. The county council is currently paying 20.6 per cent above the standard spending assessment to social services. That effectively means that other budgets are having to be severely trimmed back to ensure that elderly people can receive the care that they need. In the past three years, Buckinghamshire has added #34.5 million to government funds to pay for care services. Despite that, and despite the prospect of a budget overspend this year, the Buckinghamshire Association of Care Homes, which represents 200 care home owners, says that unless the county is prepared to pay a higher than usual increase in fee rates, its members will suffer very considerable losses or else go out of business. The funding gap, it says, amounts to about #50 per resident per week. In proportion to fees, that is a very large sum.
	It is perhaps ironic that the Government are insisting that unit costs for social care in Buckinghamshire must be reduced. It is difficult to see, quite honestly, how that can happen in an area with a cost of living that is considerably higher than the average. Already we are seeing care homes being sold to developers because of the premium that land attracts especially in the south of the county. Why should care home owners struggle to make ends meet when, by cashing in on the value of their property, they can sit back and relax? As we all know, however, the ripples from such closures spread outwards. As my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew rightly pointed out, for every care home that ceases to trade, there is even more pressure on local hospitals where delayed discharges from acute beds are a constant and serious problem.
	Not only is there a waiting list to go into hospital, there is a waiting list to get out of hospital as well. Already it is proving very difficult to find vacancies in care homes in some southern areas of the county. In the end, Buckinghamshire may be faced with little alternative but to impose a substantial increase—perhaps even a double-digit increase—in council tax. The Government may wish that to happen. If they do, it would be interesting to hear their reasons. The SSA received by Buckinghamshire is currently the second lowest of all the shire counties. The amount it receives per elderly person in residential care is #345. The contrast could not be more striking between Buckinghamshire and authorities in London, such as Islington, where the equivalent figure is #917. We have to ask the Minister whether he is satisfied that the relatively low level of funding paid by the Government to the south-eastern counties of England—far and away lower than other areas—is fair.
	To those who may suppose that counties such as Buckinghamshire are a soft touch and that it may perhaps be too easy for an elderly person to receive local authority funding for a care placement, I have to say that nothing could be more wrong. Buckinghamshire has the strictest of rules on who qualifies for support. However, that fact is itself adding to the cost pressures on care homes. In times gone by, it was possible for a partially under-funded care home to cross-subsidise residents who needed a higher than average degree of looking after by having a mix of residents, some with minimal care needs, others with greater needs. Swings and roundabouts operated. Nowadays, that cross-subsidy is much more difficult to achieve. The harder it is for an elderly person to pass the local authority's local eligibility test, the more likely it is that those who do pass will have a greater degree of acuity, as it is termed, and so will be more costly to look after. As average levels of acuity rise, as they are doing, so the finances of care homes are progressively squeezed.
	A further consequence flows from the arrangements. Some care homes that remain in business will be tempted to compromise on their standards of care. Most will not contemplate doing so. However, in the recent report by the King's Fund—entitled XFuture Imperfect?", which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones—we see some important messages. That report emphasised the risks of ever greater cost containment by local authorities in terms of the slippage that in some areas has already occurred in care standards. Care and support workers tend to be inadequately trained and poorly paid. There are high levels of turnover. Staff are often as hard to recruit as they are to retain. Workers have less time to spend with the people whom they are meant to be looking after.
	In such a climate, service users lack choice and control over the type of service that they want and need. Cultural and ethnic minorities are especially disadvantaged; how right the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, was in all that she said on that matter. Unless as a society we consciously decide to value care workers more than we do, we shall be short-changing not only our elderly citizens, but anyone at all who uses the NHS for secondary care. I agreed very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said in his excellent speech. Without enough care and support workers, and without a thriving care home sector, our health care system as a whole will suffer.
	That will take money. The King's Fund estimates that social services nationally are under-funded by about #700 million annually. If that figure is valid, as I believe it may well be, the question that follows from it is who will pay. That is a question that I put to the Minister during passage of the Care Standards Act 2000 when we debated the effect of the new national minimum standards on care homes. Those minimum standards are nearly upon us, but we still have not had an answer to the crucial question.
	As my noble friend Lord Astor rightly said, we all agree that improvements in physical standards in care homes are desirable. But unless care home owners can see that the investment required to meet the standards will be reflected in the income they receive, many will not be in a position to continue in business. The trenchant remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, about being Xfit for the future", were music to my ears. I said exactly the same thing during our debates on the Bill.
	The costs arising from the forthcoming regulations will be significant. There is grave worry in the sector that for many providers those costs will be unaffordable. Already the care home system has had to absorb the cost of the minimum wage amounting to around #90 million in total, yet no specific recognition has been paid to that in revenue support grant.
	There are over 200,000 elderly people supported by local authorities in nursing or residential homes in England and Wales. It is difficult to know how that figure will change over the next few years. But with the introduction of a single assessment process next year for all local authorities, and with the elderly population increasing in number, it is not unreasonable to imagine that demand for care home places could rise substantially. That prospect alone should be enough to concentrate the minds of Ministers on what needs to be done.
	We have seen some welcome additional funding being injected into the system in recent weeks. But what really matters is how the system will cope in the longer term. Unless there is the necessary capacity in the care home sector, and unless that sector is in good heart in all areas of the country, then occasional ad hoc sums designed to reduce bed-blocking will count for little. That ultimately is the issue posed by my noble and learned friend's Motion. I hope that in his response today the Minister will give us cause to think that the Government understand the seriousness of the matters we have been debating and, in so doing, provide some basis of hope for the future.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, on securing this debate. He is a new and formidable addition to the regular cast list of noble Lords who have happily debated these issues over the past three years. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that those debates have been Xsandwiched" between more general debates about the National Health Service. It is extremely useful for us to have a concentrated and focused discussion on social care and the impact of the current situation on the care home sector.
	I say at once that I am by no means complacent about the current pressures on the care home sector. Like my noble friend Lord Lipsey, I agree that a strong, viable care home sector is a crucial requirement for the effective delivery of care services. Indeed, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about the Xseamless thread" that needs to run between the NHS and social care. I agree with that. The NHS Plan depends crucially on our ability to deliver that approach to seamless care.
	A number of concerns were raised in the debate. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised specific issues of funding. My noble friend Lord Lipsey talked about the need for a care sector which has long-term viability. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, talked of the need for a better local government-NHS interrelationship. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, talked of staffing requirements. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, re-emphasised that point in relation to the training of staff and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, talked about a crisis in the provision of social care for older people. I shall return to all those points.
	As I said, I do not wish to underestimate those concerns. Nor do I underestimate the real problems that some individual homes are facing. But some of the difficulties arise from what might be described as a structural change in the care home market. Two factors are currently having an impact. The first is the movement of large multi-home companies into the market which is impacting on individual, single-owned care homes. The second is the desire on the part of almost everyone to allow people to remain in their own homes wherever possible. I suggest that those drivers are having as much of an impact on the care home sector as the other issues raised in the debate tonight.
	We are taking a number of steps to try to bring stability to local markets and to reassure service providers. But stability is not about leaving things as they are; it is about managed change; it is about allowing people to remain in their own homes wherever possible. It is in that context that intermediate care is so important.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, in her sparkling contribution, seemed to be facing two ways. At one time she was suggesting that the panoply of controls and bids that had to be made by local government and the NHS were causing massive bureaucracy which was inhibiting local innovation. At the same time, she was suggesting that we should introduce such a panoply of controls to make sure that the money was being spent wisely in relation to intermediate care.
	I am confident that the proposals that we have put in place for intermediate care will lead to the increased capacity we require. There is no doubt that preliminary results of a recent survey for the NHS in relation to intermediate care indicate that good progress is being made towards the targets. A number of examples of good practice were indicated.
	In relation to the evaluation of intermediate care, we commissioned a national evaluation. The results will not be known for two to three years because it is a rigorous assessment. But we have evidence from local independently-conducted evaluations that properly co-ordinated and targeted intermediate care schemes have a significant impact on admissions and discharges. That too has lessons for the care home sector.
	I turn to the issue of the number of places currently available in the sector. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that 50,000 care home places have been lost since 1997. The Laing and Buisson reports, from which those figures are drawn, show that the net loss of places in the UK was around 19,000. That is because of the new homes that have opened and others that have re-registered or extended their facilities. In saying that the position is not as bleak as painted, I do not underestimate the importance of this issue.
	In essence, if one takes the year March 2000 to March 2001, recent figures published by my department show that the number of residential care and nursing home beds fell by just over 11,000. That represents 2 per cent of the total number of beds. In addition, the average national occupancy rate shows that 8 per cent of beds are unoccupied. That suggests that there is spare capacity in some places, though I accept, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, that the position is patchy. There are areas of the country where the occupancy rate is much higher and other parts where a good many vacancies exist.
	It is clearly important to understand where the sector is going in terms of the supply of residential and nursing care accommodation in England. I say to my noble friend Lord Lipsey that the Government have commissioned the Personal Social Services Research Unit to carry out a study of the supply of residential and nursing care accommodation in England. That study examines future requirements in the sector and is looking closely at the issue of profitability and closures. We expect it to produce a final report early in the new year. I shall ensure that a copy of the report is placed in the Library. It is an important report which will discuss a number of issues of concern that have been raised and will, of course, inform the future direction of policy. I accept the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe; namely, that not only do we need a viable market but also one that is concerned about the future and about raising quality. I am hopeful that the report will greatly help us in securing that aim.
	I return to the County of Kent. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, mentioned a number of the problems faced by that large county in the South East. A significant number of care home beds in Kent are occupied by residents who receive funding from outer London boroughs as some London boroughs have not taken action to develop an adequate care home market in their own area. That creates particular problems for the county council which finds itself competing with some London boroughs for a limited supply of care home beds. I shall discuss in a minute the issue of bed blocking. In recognition of the problems that Kent faces we have ensured that it will be among those authorities which receive extra funding.
	My colleague Jacqui Smith, the Minister responsible for social care, wrote to some Members of Parliament from Kent on 20th November acknowledging the particular problems faced by the council and setting out the action the Government are taking to address them. Her letter touched on a number of the initiatives which I shall describe. However, if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, has not seen that, I shall, of course, ensure that he receives a copy. I want him to understand that we are aware of some of the specific issues which he raised.
	As regards the overall situation in Kent, my understanding is that the number of residential care and nursing homes dropped by eight between March 2000 and March 2001, although, interestingly, the actual number of residential care and nursing home beds throughout the county increased during that period. There was an increase in residential care home beds of just over 1,000 but a loss of nursing home beds of 183. I accept that, as in the country as a whole, there are variations within the county. Kent is a large county both in terms of population and geography. I accept that there are variations between different parts of the county.
	It is also worth making the point that Kent's PSS SSA will increase by 5.3 per cent for the period 2002 to 2003, compared with a national average increase of 5.4 per cent. The carers' grants increased by 21.2 per cent which was very much in line with the national increase. The children's services grant increased by 18.1 per cent, compared with a national increase of 12.5 per cent.
	That brings me to the more general issue of social services funding. I do not think anyone could argue that historically—I rather hope that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, might acknowledge this—funding for social services has not been pressurised. That was certainly the position the Government inherited. We have increased social services funding by 17.8 per cent in real terms since 1997 and we shall increase it by a further 3.9 per cent in real terms next year.
	I understand that there are pressures on personal social services. As someone living in Birmingham who experienced a problem with bed blocking just some months ago, I understand those pressures. However, I believe that the Government have made significant moves to try to address some of those problems. The bed blocking fund is but one example of that. The #300 million to be allocated to social services over this year and the next to tackle the problem of bed blocking is aimed at stabilising the care home market as well as reducing delays in discharge from hospital. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that the causes of delay and the size of the problem vary from place to place. That is why #47 million of this year's #100 million is being focused on the 55 councils that need more help. The rest of the money—#43.5 million—will be distributed to the other 100 councils on the basis of the standard spending assessment. Kent will receive #2.1 million of that fund. I hope that that will help relieve some of the immediate problems it faces.
	As regards a number of the points that were made, I refer to the need for a proper relationship between personal social services authorities and care home providers. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, that we wish to see certainty in that relationship and agreement on capacity. All the work that we have done, for example, on winter planning shows the need for an holistic approach—that is what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked for—across the health and social care sector within which independent providers must play an integral part. It is because of that belief that we are very much committed to working in partnership with the independent sector to use capacity and resources to the best effect.
	We have established a strategic commissioning group, chaired first by my right honourable friend Mr John Hutton, and now by Jacqui Smith, to give greater direction to the commissioning of care services for adults, in particular older people. The group recently published an agreement entitled, Building Capacity and Partnership in Care. The agreement sets out responsibilities and expectations for central government, local government, the NHS and independent providers. It focuses on councils and the independent sector entering into those much needed long-term agreements concerning placing people into care homes or giving them other forms of support. I believe that that agreement, the increase in resources and the work that has been done on viability, profitability and capacity in the care home sector provide the structural building blocks, as it were, to try to sort out some of the problems that noble Lords have mentioned tonight.
	We have not talked much about the performance of local authorities generally, but, of course, that is an intrinsic part of the matters we discussed. I believe that the approach taken by the Social Services Inspectorate, the introduction of best value service reviews and our intention to have vigorous but none the less sensitive approaches to performance assessment and management will be the right way forward to get the kind of relationship that we obviously need between social services authorities and the care home sector.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, made some important points about staff training. They were talking about the independent care home sector but their remarks could equally well have applied to those who are directly employed by social services departments. In all such debates over the past three years, I have increasingly emphasised the need for effective training and development programmes, and for them to be backed up with support from local authority social services committees. I strongly maintain that. I also maintain that that applies to the independent care home sector.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about how the independent sector could take advantage of current initiatives relating to training in the social care sector. There are several opportunities, the first of which is available through the training support programme grant. That is paid to local councils but it can be used for those in independent organisations. Funds are also available for the implementation of the training strategy and through the learning and skills councils and our access to European funding. I should be happy to write to the noble Baroness about that if she wants me to.
	I turn to the Care Standards Act and the National Care Standards Commission. I thought that there was little more to say on that matter but perhaps we should discuss it. There is no running away from the fact that standards need to be improved in the sector. Survey work and the personal experience of many noble Lords make it clear that parts of the sector need drastic improvement. On that basis, I make no apology whatever for the Care Standards Act.
	My noble friend Lord Lipsey raised the issue of room size. I accept that that implies that the outcome of care is more important than physical standards. However, I say to him—I am sorry to drag this up yet again—that the room-size issue can be tracked back to a 1973 building note that was issued by the Department of Health. It is right to ensure that physical standards are up to scratch.

Lord Lipsey: My Lords, that is precisely the point. That is what was done in the 1970s. The point has been marvellously made that the matter is now about training, contestability of services, proper complaint mechanisms and the correct motivation of staff. Those are the issues that matter to people, not whether their room is three inches bigger or smaller. Those 1973 standards should be dead by now.

Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if my noble friend had been a little patient, I should have come to that. My point was that the standards are not, as it were, plucked out of the air. They are based on thinking around this area that has been going on for many years. As I said, I also accept that while I want good physical standards, the outcome of care is crucial. The National Care Standards Commission has taken that point on board. I look forward to further debates on those issues.
	The Government have shown, in their willingness to apply long lead-in times for compliance, a flexibility of approach that has been warmly welcomed. Ms Anne Parker, the chair of the commission, and Mr Ron Kerr, the director, are serious and sensible people who wish to take a serious and sensible approach.
	I shall desist from debating free nursing care again, although I suspect that this is not the last time on which we shall debate that interesting issue. Like my noble friend, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, was not here to debate that.
	I, least of all, do not doubt that there is real pressure in the care home sector; there is no question about that. In discussions over the past few months with people in the NHS and social services departments about planning capacity for winter pressures and—as noble Lords often point out to me—all-year-round pressures, the situation in the care home sector often comes up as an issue. All of us are exercised about that issue.
	Our approach involves an immediate injection of funds in relation to bed-blocking, to give greater stability; more resources that are more directly allocated to local authorities for personal social services spending; the partnership agreement, which is very much based on getting stability and good relations between local authorities and care home providers; and, finally, the work that is being undertaken to consider issues such as viability, profitability and capacity in the care-home sector. I hope that we will be able to publish our report very soon. Those are the essential ingredients for sorting out the problem. That cannot happen overnight, but we can give a message of hope to the sector.
	The sector must recognise that it does not function in an unchanging world. The emphasis in future will not just be on residential places; it will also be on exciting, innovative packages in the community. I hope that the sector is prepared to advance schemes that will take advantage of that. We are indebted to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, for allowing us to discuss these very important issues.

Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, the Minister ended as he began—charmingly. We expect as much from him. As he said, the ingredients are in place; the trouble is that there are not enough of them.
	I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. It has been extremely instructive—as much to me as to the Government—and it was a worthwhile use of our time.
	When I began drafting my speech a few days ago, I recognised that this was a sadly topical subject and a source of anxiety. Just how topical I had not realised until earlier today when I learned of a residential home in Kent—one of many maintained by the voluntary sector, if I may so express it—that is at serious risk of closure because of the pressures mentioned in this debate.
	I should have mentioned the work of the voluntary sector earlier—I did not—and that of the Kent Community Housing Trust in particular. Its work is valuable and it is no less liable to the pressures and their consequences than the other two sectors that I did mention.
	Noble Lords confirmed that the crisis is not confined to Kent or even to the South East. In varying degrees, it is found throughout the country. I began my opening speech by expressing the hope that the Minister or the Government would take the crisis on board and meet the urgent need with no less urgent action.
	The Minister told us of various proposals that are in the pipeline. I am afraid that I was not convinced that the urgency of the situation is being met with measures that will bring urgent palliatives.
	Since we have a minute or two remaining I shall briefly recapitulate the anxieties of noble Lords. As a neophyte—the noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, accurately used that description—I was rather relieved to find that my points were confirmed by people with much more experience on the ground. The noble Lord referred to the desperate expedients being resorted to by the independent sector in order to cope with current pressures. To be fair, that point was reiterated by the Minister. The noble Lord's words were well chosen. He said that the losses of beds in that sector were accelerating and he spoke of the frightening cost of new regulations. That was a theme throughout the debate.
	The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, confirmed the grave loss of beds and the consequences of bed-blocking in national health hospitals. He spoke about the difficulties of recruitment and retention in homes—a matter upon which I had not touched—and he cited the King's Fund. My noble friend Lord Astor spoke of the regional variations in funding and the adverse disparity that the South East, in particular, experiences.
	The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, spoke with authority, if I may say so, as a member of Oxfordshire County Council. He spoke of the drastic cost-cutting that was necessary in that authority and, I am sure, in others, in order to channel more money to areas of most need, including homes for the elderly and the frail. He said—I was glad that he had it confirmed by the Minister—that there is a need for long-term, bankable funding policies. I venture to say that it is not enough to have expedient, short-term policies but that what is needed is long-term planning that is bankable and can be relied upon.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, spoke of costs rising faster than the SSAs. She confirmed my figure of #1 billion for the shortfall in funding overall. My noble friend Lord Howe spoke of the crisis in the provision of care. Apropos of bed-blocking, he coined what I considered to be the remarkable and very telling aphorism that not only is there a waiting list to get into hospital; there is now a waiting list to get out of hospital when one no longer needs hospital care but cannot be accommodated in the type of home that one needs.
	I see why the long-term members of this club, to which I am a neophyte, so enjoy their encounters with the Minister. The noble Lord does it all with such tremendous charm. One begins to feel reassured towards the end because of the way in which he answers. But then one looks at the measures that are proposed and asks oneself the vulgar question, XWhere is the beef?". There is not too much beef now or in the immediate short term. But that is what is needed. In the short term, more homes will go out of business. Whatever exciting new measures are proposed and cooked up—I do not wish to undervalue them—they will not do anything for the people who at present are trying to struggle with the problems on the ground.
	At bottom, the problem is that Her Majesty's Government seek improvements in standards from homes—often homes that have improved greatly in recent times, although some need to do more—without providing the means of paying for them. That is the problem. It is, of course, admirable to legislate for a better deal for the frail and the vulnerable. But it is less admirable, to put it mildly, to neglect to provide the necessary means and to try to offload the resulting costs or the resulting failures on to local authorities which are in the straits described by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
	Her Majesty's Government are not resiling from the principle that SSAs will provide for the kind of proportion of costs that we are used to. But the combination of too small SSA increases and expensive statutory upratings of standards, and so on, amounts to much the same thing but in a less open way. I do not believe that we should let this subject drop, and I shall be most surprised if we do. However, for the present, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion for Papers.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Gibraltar

Baroness Hooper: rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy towards Gibraltar; and what recent developments there have been.
	My Lords, I start by declaring two interests as a member of the All-Party Group for Gibraltar and as a member of the All-Party Group for Spain. As many of your Lordships know, my interests in Gibraltar arose during my days as a Member of the European Parliament, when I was one of 12 all-party MEPs asked to look after the interests of Gibraltar. It is my hope today that, in replying, the Minister will be able to give a clear statement about the present situation and about the Government's intentions both for the immediate future and the long term. I hope that that will go some way to allay Xthe anxiety and anger" felt by the people of Gibraltar, to quote the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, when he addressed the meeting of the all-party group recently.
	Perhaps before embarking on a scrutiny of current policies, it would be helpful in setting the scene if I were to start with a brief historic outline. The modern story of Gibraltar begins with the Moors, who drove out the Visigoths at the beginning of the eighth century and remained in occupation of the Rock for 751 years until 1462. The Spanish then controlled Gibraltar for 242 years until 1704, when it was seized by a joint Anglo-Dutch military force during the war of Spanish Succession. The peace treaty which settled that war was signed in Utrecht in 1713. The treaty ceded Gibraltar to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, and the territory has remained under uninterrupted British control ever since.
	To come back a little closer to the present, I believe that we all recognise that the people of Gibraltar were tremendous allies during two world wars and that the Rock has been of great strategic significance. We also all know that Franco closed the frontier. That isolated Gibraltar and, when democracy returned to Spain in the mid-1970s, the frontier was reopened. Unfortunately, it was reopened rather grudgingly, and the present unsatisfactory situation remains. The border controls cause daily irritation for those in transit between Spain and Gibraltar. I had always hoped that the European Union would provide an umbrella to resolve the problem. Gibraltar joined the EU in 1973 when we did and then Spain joined in 1985. I thought, XOh, good. Everything will be resolved now". Unfortunately, that was not the case.
	Therefore, the Foreign Secretary and the Minister for Europe have been holding talks with their opposite numbers in Spain. There has been much comment in both the British and the Spanish press about that. I suspect that one of the current problems is that Gibraltarians probably read the Spanish as well as the British press, and that puts a distinctly different gloss on what is going on.
	There have been Questions and debates on this issue in both Houses—there was even one yesterday in your Lordships' House—and I suspect that Ministers may be becoming weary of responding to it. The House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee held hearings at which the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, was interviewed, as well as the Minister for Europe, the right honourable Peter Hain. I understand that the report of those hearings is due out tomorrow.
	I believe that all the furore has come about because the Foreign Secretary, in all good faith, seeks to resolve the irritations to which I have referred and which continue to exist. Many of them are petty and many are said to interfere with our good relations with Spain. He has courteously met with members of the all-party group, as indeed has the Minister for Europe—even this afternoon. But still the alarm and despondence continue in Gibraltar.
	Therefore, perhaps the question that should be asked is: why hold talks now? Perhaps those talks give rise to unease. Attempts to resolve the situation have been made by previous governments. I am glad that my noble and learned friend Lord Howe is joining in to explain some of the progress that was made in his day. In my view, this is definitely not a party political issue. I believe that there is nothing more sinister about the meetings than the fact that the Secretary of State represents a new broom and he wants to get these irritating issues out of the way. Perhaps it is also significant that Spain is due to hold the presidency of the European Union from January of next year. Perhaps that, too, has created pressure to get something done. In the words of the Chief Minister, Peter Caruana, we must also recognise that no government have been more disposed to dialogue with Spain than the present one in Gibraltar. Indeed, early in his administration he went to Madrid and held meetings with the then Spanish Foreign Minister.
	Perhaps I may take a long-term look at the solutions. There is, first, the continuation of the status quo which, from statements made in another place, Her Majesty's Government appear to support. It has been clearly said that it is Xno" to a handover of sovereignty to Spain and Xno" to independence, which is the preferred choice of some Gibraltarians. Secondly, there is the preference of the Spanish Government; that is, that Gibraltar should become an autonomia of Spain and have a status similar to that of Catalonia and the other 17 autonomias, but with even more rights, freedoms and independence. That is not agreeable to the people of Gibraltar. A third solution has been suggested in the past, which is to scrap the Treaty of Utrecht, which is out of date and unobserved in many of its provisions. I call that solution the XAndorra solution". It means independent status under some sort of joint patronage. That could be our Queen and the King of Spain, or the Prince of Wales and the Principe de Asturias, perhaps. That seems to me to be another possible solution. I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments on such possibilities.
	In the short term, there are other issues to be resolved, such as the talks. They have not been attended by the Chief Minister, who wishes to have meetings held only if it is back to the Xtwo flags, three voices" procedure. If the Spanish Government are as well disposed as we are led to believe, why will they not agree to that? There is the issue of voting rights in the European Union elections. I welcome the statement made by the Minister for Europe that legislation is being prepared in order to have Gibraltarians represented in the elections in 2004, the next elections to the European Parliament. Lord Bethell, who worked hard on this issue, will be delighted to hear that. I should be interested to know the timetable for that legislation, if the noble Baroness is able to give that to the House.
	There is also much reference to the damage to our relations with Spain. I was hard put to discover any concrete examples of how our good relations with Spain have been affected as a result of our support of the British citizens of Gibraltar. I emphasise that this is not an isolated issue, although Gibraltar is unique, both in terms of the strategic role that it has played in the past and because it is part of the European Union. Any decision made about the future of Gibraltar will have repercussions in other overseas territories, which may have neighbouring powers all too ready and willing to take over management of those affairs which the territories are not deemed capable of managing for themselves. It is not only the people of Gibraltar but the British citizens in all the overseas territories who are following this saga with close interest.
	It is in the nature of the debate and the constraints of procedure that I shall not have the right to reply. I should like to anticipate a couple of questions which might arise and comments which are often asserted by Spanish people to whom I have spoken. The first is, XYou have given back Hong Kong to China. Why can't you do the same for Gibraltar?" We know that Gibraltar was ceded in perpetuity, and for Hong Kong we had a time limit. Secondly, there is the issue of smuggling. Apart from the lack of evidence, if we are being meticulous about rules and regulations, what about the Spanish fishermen? Even now, an all-party maritime group has been considering that issue.
	In conclusion, I hope that the debate will send out a clear signal to the people of Gibraltar that their friends understand their anxieties and stand ready to give their support when needed. I am grateful to all those who are to speak and look forward to hearing the Minister's response.

Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I understand the Government's wish to resolve the continuing impasse with Spain over the Gibraltar question. Obviously, it is desirable that Spain's attitude to Gibraltar should be better. There seems no sensible reason why Spain should continue to provoke hostility. Nor, in my view, is there a sensible reason for Spain to rest its case on Article 10 of the Treaty of Utrecht, the pre-industrial revolution treaty, which came at a time when the concept of democracy was merely a minor notion and the rights of men were flagrantly ignored.
	I recall the pleasure I felt, as did many others, at the end of the long Franco years when Spain joined the democratic community in Europe. I was present when Spain took its seat in the Council of Europe, when it subscribed to the Convention on Human Rights and the principles of democracy and when it then followed that membership and accession by eagerly supporting the recognition and establishment of the sovereignty of a large number of states. The expansion of the Council of Europe and the end of the Cold War demanded the recognition of sovereignty of states which had not even been thought of in the middle of the 19th century. I found particularly interesting the eager enthusiasm with which Spain most emphatically supported the recognition by and membership of the Council of Europe of states such as Andorra, with a population of 65,000, San Marino with a population of 26,000, and Liechtenstein with a population of 32,000, a state not formed until six years after the Treaty of Utrecht.
	At the same time—I am grateful to the noble Baroness for speaking about its history—the state of Spain did not really exist until Granada and Navarra had been absorbed into Spain by 1512. That means that Gibraltar was part of Spain for well over 100 years less than its involvement with Britain. Yet we have a situation in which the hostility continues. Spain appears to have made no attempt to win the hearts and minds of Gibraltar. Its hostility over the years has been remarkable.
	I recall, about a decade ago, being at an RAF station and being given an opportunity to fly an aircraft simulator. I was invited to try to land a Nimrod in Gibraltar. I can remember the comforting words of the squadron leader standing behind me who said, XPeter, on this occasion you can fly through the Rock". I would certainly have done so in real life to avoid Spanish airspace. The fact remains that Spain has been remarkably foolish. It has shown hostility when wisdom would have generated a great deal more political benefit.
	At the same time, Spain may well imagine that if it maintains its present political approach, it can win. However, I believe that people are becoming a little irritated by Spain. For example, over the past few years, by the singularly vigorous use of its diplomatic service, Spain has secured a disproportionate number of important political positions in the free world. I refer to the Council of Europe, WEU, OSCE, NATO, and the European second pillar. That is a disproportionate number of positions, given Spain's population of 32 million. It has ignored a number of—for example—European Union steel policies. I recall a steel works in my then constituency which was doing very well. Spain could not possibly compete with it until the Spanish Government gave huge public support in utter defiance of EU policy.
	I recall—I have mentioned this in the House previously but I shall touch on it again because it is relevant—how the Spanish were among the leading voices calling for the establishment of the European second pillar. France was equal in its enthusiasm. However, when we became slightly anxious about the excessive zeal that Spain was displaying in that regard, its Ministers invited the Defence Committee to go to Madrid to discuss the matter. When we arrived we were told that the meeting had been cancelled. We were put onto an aircraft and flown to the historic shipyard of Ferrol to be given a demonstration of Spain's contribution to European security. We were shown an aircraft carrier which was near completion. The British members then discovered that the aircraft carrier was intended for the Royal Thailand Navy to serve as flagship and royal yacht for the King of Thailand. It was not a contribution to the EU security policy which Spain was so avidly supporting.
	I do not want to criticise Spain. I have friends in Spain. I want to see a sensible relationship between Spain and this country. I also want to see decency to the people of Gibraltar. I trust that the Government will seek to persuade Spain to change its approach and to win hearts and minds. If it does it will very rapidly reverse the situation which it should have taken more seriously when just 44 people in Gibraltar voted for a link with Spain in a recent referendum.
	I emphasise to my noble friend that it would be highly desirable for Britain, and perhaps the international community, to urge Spain, along with Britain, to submit this case to the International Court of Justice in the hope that it can come to a conclusion which will solve the impasse and allow Spain and Gibraltar and Gibraltarians to live happily together. That will enable British and Spanish relationships to be as good as they should be.

Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hardy, in order to echo his closing words. The objective which we all seek is good relations between our country and Spain, and a prosperous, peaceful and hopeful future for the people of Gibraltar. Despite my legal background, I would not immediately look towards a court resolution of the problem. But that is a different matter.
	I also thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for initiating this very important debate. She rightly drew attention to the historic importance of Gibraltar in the history of this country and to the loyalty of its people through many adverse circumstances. She also rightly drew attention to the possibly valuable role of our joint membership of the European Union. She speaks with authority on this subject because of her distinguished service as a Member of the European Parliament in the halcyon days when Merseyside was represented in that institution by a Conservative MEP. We all look forward to the return of that prospect, although not perhaps to its representation by my noble friend.
	I do not want to compete with Queen Mary and say that Gibraltar is engraved on my heart. Certainly, it occupies a very important position in my recollection of my six years at the Foreign Office. It is probably the biggest disappointment of my time there. I thought that we had left it on track for a solution along the right lines. That has not happened. The Brussels agreement, which lead to the opening of the frontier was also designed to lead, and did lead, to the accession of Spain to the European Union and indeed to NATO. I attended in Madrid as well as at Lisbon to sign the Treaty of Accession for Spain to the European Union. Senor Fernando Moran negotiated that agreement with me and set the Brussels process under way. We would not attach any importance to the name, any more than our predecessors, the noble Lords, Lord Carrington and Lord Owen, would attach importance to the Lisbon process which was also derailed.
	I think I am right in saying that the then Chief Minister, Sir Joshua Hassan, was present at all the key negotiations leading to the Brussels agreement. I do not think—but I cannot be sure—that he took a direct part in triangular discussion, but he certainly met the Spanish delegation, and we all recognised that his voice was one to which we must listen.
	It is quite clear that the voice of the people of Gibraltar must be of decisive importance as we look for a solution. Some people question the legitimacy of even seeking a solution to this issue. Some people write and speak as though the search for improvement in this position is in some way, ex hypothesi, disloyal—disloyal to the people of Gibraltar and disloyal to the British interests. I reject that absolutely. If one is to reject that rationally and to understand the unwisdom of condemning that as disloyalty, it is necessary to understand the present position. The fact is that the present position is doing harm to every party concerned. It is doing harm to Spain itself. It has a historic grievance, and one can understand that. For Spain to have a small corner of territory outside its own country but very close as an area of persistent economic, social and political concern must in itself be undesirable.
	Gibraltar has a similar set of problems to confront. These have already been mentioned by my noble friend. There is a limit to its prospect of political progress; there are recurrent economic and social shocks; the frontier closes and opens; and there is no present arrangement for its representation in the European Union. To all our partners in the European Union there are recurrent failures to achieve agreement because of the persistence of this obstacle. The United Kingdom suffers disadvantage because of the other things that could go wrong. All those disadvantages to our European partners affect us. We have a potential running sore in our relationship with Spain, despite all the other areas where we have good relations. We share with the people of Gibraltar—people for whom we have an inescapable sense of responsibility—their sense of frustration at the persistence of this grievance.
	In terms of British selfish interest, which some Spanish commentators say is the reason for our position, we have virtually no selfish interests in the perpetuation of the present situation of conflict. The days of the coaling station and of a naval dockyard for repair services have passed. The Gibraltar dockyard became like those in our own country which had to face economic pressures and therefore ceased to play the part they used to play.
	Far and away the greatest British interest in the situation is in a resolution of this dispute on terms acceptable to the other parties. The continuance of the dispute is against everyone's interests.
	The background starts in the Treaty of Utrecht, in the sense that our title and the Spanish claim to the reversion of sovereignty are rooted in that. The word Xalways" looms out of that treaty as one factor. It is a word that prudent politicians today would never use, I fancy. On the other hand, before the preamble to the constitution of Gibraltar in 1969, it is set out that we would Xnever" make the change of sovereignty of Gibraltar without the consent of the people. So one has a Xnever" confronting an Xalways". If one is to find a solution, it is essential that both sides—I say Xboth sides" because it is really only Gibraltar and Spain that are contending with each other—in seeking to find a solution, are willing to make changes to their positions.
	As has already been said by both the previous speakers, if a solution in the long-term is to be found, Spain must surely acknowledge the need to secure the consent of the people of Gibraltar. It must surely regulate its conduct and attitude in relation to these matters with a view to achieving that outcome. In effect, it must win their trust—to be able to win a referendum in the last resort—if it is to find a final solution to the problem. It must abandon any ideas that harassment or obstruction can win any advantage at all.
	The frontier that I thought was open at the time of the Brussels agreement has been recurrently shut. It is a permanent irritant in this situation. Disputes over licences, passports and telephone numbers can all be resolved with good will.
	But Gibraltar must be ready to move as well. First, above all, it must surely abandon the opposition that some express to joint use and development of the airport. Nothing would do more good to the economic development of southern Spain and Gibraltar than to implement the agreement—which, again, I thought that I had reached with Senor Fernandez Ordonez way back. Unhappily, implementation of that agreement was blocked by the reluctance of the Gibraltar legislature to see it through. That remains the position today, although many voices in Gibraltar, not least the Gibraltar Chamber of Commerce, now see the necessity for it.
	The fact that the legislature could block that in that way is a real demonstration of the need for consent in the whole process. Mr Peter Caruana has recognised the other component. Some time ago, he said:
	XYou cannot expect to engage Madrid in a process of dialogue in which they are not free even to raise the matter that is of most interest to them—and that is of sovereignty".
	In my judgment, it should ultimately be possible to reach an agreement whereby, as my noble friend Lady Hooper said, sovereignty might be shared in one of a variety of ways between the United Kingdom and Spain—but not, please, by means of a lease, which would merely recreate a Hong Kong-type situation and postpone the problem for the future. The Andorran solution is certainly a possibility.
	Discussion of that aspect will be made possible only on the basis of growing wider trust and confidence between the peoples of Spain and Gibraltar. Progress of that kind requires, above all, the willingness of the parties concerned—Gibraltar as well as Spain—to meet and talk to each other. They must find ways in which they can work together by effectively securing joint use of the airport and by cessation of harassment of any kind. Spain must be willing to view the people of Gibraltar as it should if it is to reach its objective and if the people of Gibraltar are to be reassured in the way that I should like.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I should like to begin by declaring an interest. For some 25 years, I was an official—latterly, the general secretary—of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, which became the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists, a trade union organising on Gibraltar for about 65 to 70 years. As my noble friend the Minister is well aware, my union had a series of major difficulties in Gibraltar. The closure of the dockyard has been mentioned. There were naval base issues. We still have more than 800 members on the Rock—I say we; I have no formal relationship with the union any more, I am retired. But, needless to say, the people that I have known for a quarter of a century have been anxious to let me know their views and concerns. They have written to me and I have received more e-mails than usual because of their concern.
	I am grateful to both the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for setting out some of the history and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, whose great experience in the matter brings us up to date. A point on which there is total agreement is that we need a solution that is acceptable to all. The problem in Gibraltar is people's great anxiety that, to put it crudely, they will be sold out. Everybody in Gibraltar would agree with the view expressed by the noble and learned Lord that the British have no selfish interest in retaining Gibraltar. However, many of them would turn that on its head and say that the British want to get rid of the problem.
	That judgment may be unjust. I have already told my former colleagues and the members of the union—now named Prospect—in Gibraltar that I have every faith in the integrity of the Ministers concerned. Two issues concern my former colleagues: one is the role of the Chief Minister in any such talks; the second is the back-stop that the issue of sovereignty will, in the final analysis, be put to a referendum. At the union's request, I am visiting Gibraltar next week, and I should be grateful if I could take assurances from my noble friend the Minister. I should also like to pose her a couple of questions that have been posed to me.
	First, on the question of the role of the Chief Minister, if there are to be confidence-building talks leading to a solution that everyone can accept, my former colleagues believe it essential that the Chief Minister be involved in trilateral talks with the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom, and they are aware of the precedent set by the previous Chief Minister but one, Sir Joshua Hassan. There is no division between the political parties in Gibraltar on that issue.
	During my many years dealing with Gibraltar, I had some lively battles with Mr Joe Bassano, the previous Chief Minister, the current Chief Minister, the Ministry of Defence and other establishments. I learnt that we had for many years been anxious to ensure that those on Gibraltar recognised their allegiance to the United Kingdom. Some of my union's members were born in the United Kingdom, but many are for many generations Gibraltarian. They have always looked to the United Kingdom for further education and technical training—I believe that the Chief Minister was at one stage trained in the United Kingdom, as were most prominent Gibraltarians. They accept that there should be a solution acceptable to all, but are uneasy about the limited role given to the Chief Minister and the fact that whatever input Gibraltar has, in the final analysis, any decision will be made between the two Governments without their involvement.
	That may not be the end of the story, if they can rely upon a referendum. The question is: what does the referendum represent? Will it be solely on the issue of sovereignty? Is there a difference between legal sovereignty and the sovereignty of not being interfered with in the running of one's business by another government or party? I should be grateful for some reassurance on that from my noble friend the Minister. From my e-mails and telephone conversations, I know that those are the Gibraltarians' considerable anxieties.
	If anything, the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her eloquent and moderate presentation, may have slightly understated some of the difficulties. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath that, when democracy returned to that country, the Spanish Government would have better pursued their interests had they been more accommodating.
	Gibraltarians sometimes have to spend two and a half hours getting across the border at the caprice of a policeman who decides when it opens and when it shuts and that the bonnet and the boot must be opened, while the next car may be waved through because he feels that he likes the person or knows them. That is not irritation; that is harassment. That has taken its toll on the confidence of Gibraltarians to believe that talks in which they are not fully included will lead to solutions acceptable to all. If we are to make progress—I accept much of the analysis of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon—building confidence and carrying Gibraltarians with us from the beginning of the process to the end is the only way. I look forward to some reassurance on those points from my noble friend the Minister.

Lord Thomas of Swynnerton: My Lords, an encouraging aspect of the present situation is that, for the first time—if the reports from the meetings of Senor Pique and Mr Straw in Barcelona are correct—the Government seem to look on Gibraltar as a problem to be solved and not, to put it perhaps too strongly, a redoubt to be defended. I hope that we might now be able to start from scratch without too much attention to old commitments such as the Treaty of Utrecht—or even the 1969 Gibraltar constitution.
	Of course, they have legal significance and will continue to have such. They are period pieces—rather good antiques in some respects—but, in the case of the Treaty of Utrecht, not entirely creditable. The treaty obliged Britain to keep Jews and Moors off the Rock. That was not done—as a matter of fact, the dominant politician in Gibraltar during much of the second part of the 20th century, Sir Joshua Hassan, a delightful individual, was, I think, both.
	The Treaty of Utrecht gave Britain the right to import 4,800 slaves into the Spanish empire. That is not something on which we now seem to rely for our commercial interest in Latin America. The treaty gave no firm basis for the occupation of the neutral ground on which we built the airport in 1938. Of course, the Gibraltar constitution is less of an antique. Nevertheless, it was written at a time very different from the present. General Franco was still in power. Spain had not entered the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation, nor the European Union. Your Lordships may say that that is unimportant, but the fact is that the North Atlantic Treaty obliges Britain to defend all Spanish territory. We are obliged to defend La Linea and Algeciras, just as much as Spain is obliged to defend Dover Castle and the Isle of Wight.
	Therefore, I believe that we ought to consider the situation from scratch. We ought also to consider the interests and preoccupations of all three parties concerned. Furthermore, let us not forget the important remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, in which he pointed out that the present situation causes damage to all three parties concerned.
	Let us first consider the British position. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, pointed our most eloquently, for generations Gibraltar played a large part in British strategic thinking. No such defence preoccupation exists today, not even as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, pointed out, a coaling station or naval dockyard. Britain has a responsibility to ensure that any change should be carried out justly and fairly. We have not always done that in our past abandonment of political positions outside this country, but we must try and do so in this case.
	As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, said, it is also important to appreciate the fact that we need and want good relations with Spain. Spain is a natural ally of this country within the European Union. It is an important trading partner and several hundred thousand British people live there permanently.
	Moreover, we should not forget the interests of Spain because they exist. There is not just the residual right under the Treaty of Utrecht if Britain should consider divesting herself of responsibility for Gibraltar. Obviously, Spain must have a strategic interest in the future of the Rock. She could not accept, for example—I do not suggest that it is a possibility—a terrorist government in Gibraltar or one which, like General Noriega's government in Panama, was concerned primarily to sell drugs. Even a demagogic government, such as Mr Mintoff had in Malta, would cause a good deal of difficulty in Spain.
	Perhaps we should remember that Spain was most understanding in relation to the recent crisis deriving from the damage to the submarine XFearless". Perhaps she was more helpful to this country than was the Gibraltarian government, but it reminded us that those waters are of Spanish interest. A nuclear submarine sinks in the Bay of Algeciras and that is a main consideration for any Spanish government.
	Childish though it may seem—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, touched on the matter—the fight of the Rock often seems to Spaniards a reminder of past humiliation. No doubt that should not be so but we can imagine that if by any chance a Spanish admiral had seized Dover Castle in 1704 rather than Admiral Rooke seizing Gibraltar we would understand the situation in much the same way.
	Then there are the interests of the Gibraltarians. Fernando Moran, who was Foreign Minister of Spain in the mid-1980s, made a point in a recent article in the newspaper, El Pais, that Spanish politicians often acted as though those interests did not exist, but of course they do. Gibraltarians want to remain British and of course they want to retain the property they have now. They want to retain their strong economic position, including their place as an offshore financial centre.
	Many Gibraltarians want to travel in Spain, do business and have holidays more easily than is now possible. Gibraltarians want more telephone lines from Spain but one day they could want protection even from the Spanish navy; for example, against illegal immigration from Morocco. Who knows what the future of North Africa is? The situation could constitute a serious concern for any Spanish government.
	Returning to Gibraltarians, at some time in the future one of the cities near Gibraltar such as San Roque or even Algeciras might develop a university to which Gibraltarians might want to go. I hope that that might be done. Above all, Gibraltarians must require and desire certainty about the future.
	I make no apology for believing that the best solution is one that has already been mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe; for a so-called Andorra solution. That would mean that Gibraltar would have an autonomous government, much as it does today but perhaps slightly differently formed. The King of Spain and the Queen of England would be the joint sovereigns. As in the similarly successful bicephalous state of Andorra, the President of France—he used to be the King of France—and the Bishop of Seo and Urgel are the sovereign powers.
	Andorra has been a success since 1278 and I believe that that solution should be seriously considered. Of course it is eccentric and might seem odd to the tidy-minded constitutionalists but nevertheless often the eccentric is the desirable answer. I do not dare to suggest that a bishop should be involved, but I believe that we should recognise that the realities of geography and modern strategy, as well as tradition, suggest that the two-flag solution might be one to which we should give serious attention.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, in rising to speak in the debate I declare an interest in the matter. I am a member of the Gibraltarian group. In examining the issue, much has been said about Spain. Spain could help itself. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, appears to forget that the difficulties which exist are being caused by Spain. As was said by my noble friends, if Spain wants to woo the people of Gibraltar it is going about it in a very strange way.
	In every hour of every day of every year there are traffic difficulties at the border crossing. One is held up for at least one and a half hours every day. There is no air or sea travel to Spain. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred to the defence of certain towns in Spain. I realise that no UK military flight can pass over Spain, despite the fact that we are both in NATO.
	I believe that that is a ridiculous situation. Spain will not sign the XOpen Skies" agreement because it objects to the involvement of Gibraltar. All that is caused by Spain, not Britain or Gibraltar. Furthermore, Spain has been forced into making telephone concessions because Gibraltar has a right to them. It was decided by the international court.
	And why does Spain object to Gibraltarians participating in European elections? It may want to win over the Gibraltarians but it is indulging in silly behaviour such as preventing Gibraltar from participating in international sporting events and sending top judges. Such behaviour is unnecessary, unacceptable and unjustified. If Spain wants to woo over Gibraltar, it is going about it in a most strange way.
	However, Spain is the country which is benefiting from all those restrictions. I believe that the talks should go ahead and I hope that agreement can be reached. However, the people of Gibraltar are on edge because they believe that they are in danger of being sold out and will be unable to have a say in their future destiny.
	Gibraltar has a viable economy. Irritating as the restrictions are, even if no concessions are made Gibraltar will still thrive. I hope that if the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, has some influence with his Spanish friends and that he will bring those matters to their attention and ask them, XWhy are you doing it?".
	Let us look at what Gibraltar has achieved recently. Only a few years ago, some 70 per cent of the Gibraltarian economy depended on the dockyard. The dockyard is now a thriving tourist centre and the Rock has become a major financial centre. The Gibraltarian people have proved themselves extremely resourceful and they should be praised for what they have achieved.
	The problems over Gibraltar have more to do with relations between Britain and Spain rather than with the future of the Rock itself. As I have said, Gibraltar can continue to be viable and to prosper even if no change takes place and the status quo remains. Again, much has been made of the proposal that the Chief Minister should attend the negotiations. Surely, however, ultimately the agreement should not be made between Britain and Spain, but rather between the three parties. On that basis, the Chief Minister should take part.
	I should like to put one or two questions to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I know that she always gives excellent replies to our queries, but I appreciate that she may be able to respond directly to some questions, but that to others she may not be able to do so. When my honourable friend the Minister for Europe or my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary refer to the position of Gibraltar, they have made it clear that the Gibraltarians will be consulted if their sovereignty is at stake. But Gibraltar cannot be given away; that right is written large.
	My noble friend Lord Brett has already put the question, but I too should like to know the meaning of a new term that has cropped up recently. It was used by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary when answering Questions in another place. Suddenly he started to refer to Xlegal sovereignty". We want to know what that term means because it is the kind of point that upsets the people of Gibraltar. Does it mean that an agreement will be sought that may fall short of sovereignty, and that the people of Gibraltar will not be consulted? That is the underlying fear of many Gibraltarians. I would be pleased if, when my noble friend comes to respond to the debate, she would answer the question. The answer will reassure the people of Gibraltar.
	Spain always refers to the problem of smuggling. Anyone looking at the situation could not fail to ask why anyone would want to smuggle goods into Gibraltar and then have to cross the frontier. Indeed, my honourable friend the Minister for Europe, when responding to a question put to him at the meeting of the Foreign Affairs Committee on 28th November last, had to admit that there was no evidence of smuggling. As those allegations are not backed by any evidence, I refer to what was said in response to the Select Committee's report of July 2001. We said that if Spain was making false allegations we would raise the matter and that a press statement would be issued. Does the Minister admit that the Spanish Government will provide no evidence? When did we raise the matter? If we did so, where was that done? Was a press statement issued as a result?
	A further issue is that Gibraltar would like to be self-determining. Again, Gibraltarians are quite happy to say that they do not think that that would depend on the Treaty of Utrecht and that they are prepared to go to the International Court of Justice. Gibraltar has more to lose than either Spain or Britain. Why do we not investigate whether the Gibraltarians could have self determination? I also join other noble Lords in asking whether we could have details of how Gibraltarians will be enfranchised in time for the European elections in 2004? How will that be brought about? The people of Gibraltar would welcome news about what work has already been done on that matter.
	Finally, in the response to the Select Committee's report in July 2001, the Government said that they were continually monitoring border delays and that they would take every opportunity to raise the matter with the Spanish Government. I know that my noble friend will not be able to give a response tonight, but will she write to me and place a copy of that letter in the Library? Since 1997 when have the Government raised the question of delays at the border, with whom has the question been raised and how often has it been raised? If we could have the answers to some of those questions, some of the fears of the people of Gibraltar could be put aside. They fear that an agreement will be reached which will fall short of interference with sovereignty, but one which would have a marked effect on the development of the Rock. Having said that, I wish the talks well.

Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for the opportunity to debate so important a subject as the fate of the people of Gibraltar. We all know that in 1969 the British government of the day, a Labour government, said in the preamble to Gibraltar's new constitution that,
	XGibraltar is a part of Her Majesty's dominion and will remain so unless and until an Act of Parliament otherwise provides, and that furthermore HM Government have made clear that it will never hand over the people of Gibraltar to another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
	It stated further that Gibraltar would henceforth be known as the City of Gibraltar, and no longer as a colony. Furthermore, it stated that Her Majesty's Government,
	Xwill never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes".
	The international status of Gibraltar would not be affected by the constitutional proposals and the people of Gibraltar, in common with the people of the UK and its other dependent territories, would continue to enjoy their existing status as British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and colonies.
	When Spain, in retaliation, introduced a number of measures of harassment, including closing the border and ordering Spanish workers to leave the Rock, the government of the day responded with admirable firmness. The then Foreign Secretary stated that,
	XThe declared policy of Her Majesty's Government is to support Gibraltar and we will continue to sustain its people . . . The Spanish government decision cannot in any way lessen—indeed, it must strengthen—our determination to do everything that may be required of us to enable the Gibraltarians to resist Spanish pressure and to maintain their economy".
	Autre temps, autre moeurs. Today, Spain is no longer a fascist dictatorship. Spain will have the next presidency of the European Union. Without important concessions to Spain, the EU's ambitious plans to establish control of the single European sky and, in effect, to supersede Euro-control are being obstructed. Her Majesty's Government want to be loved by Spain, which is often a useful ally, and they do not want to be responsible for holding up the single European sky project, some of which, although by no means all, could have useful effects.
	There has been another change. In the changed world of defence, the Rock is no longer an essential, although remaining, I would have said, a valuable, part of our defence strategy. The Navy no longer needs the dockyards. Not least the European Union is gunning for offshore financial centres. These include the Channel Islands and Gibraltar, the latter having resourcefully become such a centre in response to the need to change its entire economy and find a new way to survive economically.
	Her Majesty's Government therefore have several reasons, in the EU context, to wish to please Spain at any cost. There is just one awkward and inescapable fact in the way. We told the Gibraltarians, in their new constitution in 1969, that we would never hand over the people of Gibraltar to another state against their freely expressed and democratic wishes. Indeed, the UN Charter forbids us to do so. It lays on us a solemn and binding obligation, in the British Government's own words, to safeguard the interests of the inhabitants of the non self-governing territories for which they are responsible.
	I have little doubt that the Minister will set out the wonderful advantages that would accrue to Gibraltar if it came under the rule of Spain, and she will say regretfully what a difficult life the people are going to have if it does not. It is doubly unfortunate that while Spain's colony, Ceuta, and the French dependencies all have a vote and thus a voice in the EU, we have not so far secured that for Gibraltar even though, because of her British association, Gibraltar actually entered the EU when we did, some years before Spain.
	The Secretary of State recently, in the context of Gibraltar, was reported as saying that we need to rethink our attitudes to concepts like independence and sovereignty. He said that by sharing sovereignty, the people may end up with more, not less, independence of action; more, not less, internal self-government; and more, not less, control over their lives. He added that we cannot afford to ignore the lesson that nations are stronger when working together than they could be alone.
	Two independent entities working together may indeed be more powerful, but I cannot see how Gibraltarians could possibly feel more in control of their lives if they have shared sovereignty with another country whose interests are so different from their own. There is no way we can expect them to prefer to yield control over their own lives. Would we do so? Of course not—so why should they?
	There is no honourable, legal or constitutional way—unless the Minister can tell us otherwise—in which we can go back on our agreement and hand Gibraltar over against the wishes of its people. If our intention is to secure our object and that of Spain by virtually blackmailing Gibraltar by withdrawing the support it was honourably given in 1969, it will still not be possible to hand over Gibraltar—and, sadly, this Government could never again have the effrontery to claim that they operate an ethical foreign policy.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this is a sensitive issue but, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, said, it is not party political. It is rather like the Cyprus issue—which I am sure we will also be debating in the next year—one which has all kinds of echoes in the domestic politics of this country.
	The situation has changed a great deal since 1969, and, indeed, since 1985. Spain is thoroughly democratic and a member of the European Union; British/Spanish links are far closer than they were; there is, as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton, remarked, a very large British population in southern Spain. I am not sure that I am entirely happy with that. The last time I drove east from Gibraltar towards Malaga, the area seemed to be becoming very much like the strip between Bournemouth and Poole—filled with golf courses for retired, well-to-do British businessman. There is a large Spanish population in the United Kingdom and, with the recruitment of Spanish nurses, that population is about to increase.
	Gibraltar is benefiting much less from British defence spending than it was, and so it is more dependent on tourism and on having become an offshore financial centre. The Gibraltar economy is fragile. I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Hoyle, who said that Gibraltar could be prosperous even if there were no change in the status quo. If Gibraltar's prosperity is to depend more on being a tax haven, that is real vulnerability, and one has to be prepared for that.
	I am puzzled by the remarks about recent delays on the frontier. It took me about 35 seconds the last time I crossed it.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but the figures I gave were not my figures. The figures of the British Government and of the Gibraltar Government show that crossing takes a minimum of one and a half hours. From my experience and that of others, I can only say that the noble Lord was very lucky indeed.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, I was obviously very lucky. I was merely going to say that the time it took me was mainly spent soaking my feet in the disinfectant provided because of the foot-and-mouth epidemic.
	The present position is not sustainable; it is not in the interests of Gibraltarians in the long run; and it is not in the interests of Andalucia. One has to talk about Spain in regional terms at this point. Part of the mistake of the Spanish Foreign Ministry—it has been the Spanish Foreign Ministry above all which has held firm on this point—has been due to the Castilians in Madrid who are strongly committed to the unity of Spain. Therefore it is highly appropriate that British/Spanish talks on Gibraltar should take place in Barcelona, where the Catalans have a slightly different perspective.
	We should all welcome close relations between Britain and Spain because we have a wide range of shared interests. We should be searching for an agreed solution. The Andorran solution involving some form of shared sovereignty, which has been suggested by several noble Lords, looks to be the way forward.
	We have to be careful to avoid allowing governments to get stuck on the question of legal sovereignty. The question of what exactly sovereignty now means is one which governments, such as the Turkish government at the moment, find very easy to debate passionately—but, of course, sovereignty has always eased a way between advanced industrial democracies. Shared sovereignty should be possible and mutually acceptable. That would allow for the development of the airport; for regional enterprise and regional employment; and for shared health services, education and telecommunications. As a number of noble Lords said, that would provide a more secure future basis for Gibraltarian prosperity than further development of its tax haven status.
	We must recognise that part of the Spanish sensitivity is that Gibraltar is on the external frontier of the European Union. While we recognise that the smuggling issues which were there in Gibraltar many years ago have been effectively cleaned up, there is bound to be much concern about the security of the Straits of Gibraltar because a very large number of people are already being smuggled across those straits to southern Spain. This is an issue about which the Spanish Government are rightly concerned.
	Anomalies such as Gibraltar should be manageable within the European Union—there are a number of other anomalies— but they have to be justifiable. Gibraltar's position in the EU and the question of voting rights must clearly go with Gibraltar's acceptance of EU obligations. There is a contradiction between the Gibraltarian Government asking to be treated in the same way as the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man as a home dependency, when the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man go to great lengths to insist that they are not in the European Union and that their low tax status—I was assured by the chief executive of Jersey—is guaranteed by an agreement with the Duke of Normandy of 1204. If that agreement is still valid—as I was assured it was only a year ago—then 1713 is a relatively recent agreement.
	We need to be cautious about allowing important British dependencies to cherry pick on their EU obligations while exploiting tax loopholes, on-line gambling, offshore financial centres and so on. This is not just about Gibraltar; it is also important for the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
	I support the Government's moves towards a settlement. I do not see it as appeasement, as the Daily Telegraph appears to charge at least once a week. I ask and urge the Spanish Government to hold back its Castilian nationalist hard-liners and to listen more to those in Bilbao and Barcelona who have a much better sense of Spain as a country which itself shares sovereignty. I ask the Gibraltar Government not to dig themselves deeper into a hole from which it might be impossible to reach a settlement which would be in the best long-term interests of Gibraltarians.

Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Hooper for bringing this important subject before the House. We on these Benches welcome the Government's announcement that the Gibraltar electorate should be able to vote in European parliamentary elections. We look forward to playing our part constructively in the legislative process to enable that to happen. I also hope that the Minister will give the House some information today about a timetable.
	This is a worrying time for the people of Gibraltar, a concern shared by a number of speakers from all quarters of the House. There is a genuine fear among Gibraltarians that they will be presented with a Xdone deal" affecting their sovereignty which they will be under enormous political and financial pressure to accept. This is particularly the case as the Spanish Foreign Minister has been quoted in the Spanish media as saying that taking over the sovereignty of Gibraltar is No. 2 on the ministry's priority list, immediately following the fighting of international terrorism.
	Can the Minister confirm that the two governments are not working to a hidden and pre-agreed agenda? Will she confirm the point made by noble friend that the preamble to the Gibraltar legislation of 1969 still stands?
	The Foreign Secretary met his Spanish counterpart in Barcelona on 20th November. As my noble and learned friend Lord Howe said, we seek good relations with Spain. Both countries have much to gain from working constructively together.
	Although we welcome the Spanish decision to more than triple the number of telephone numbers for Gibraltar to 100,000 and its proposals to improve healthcare facilities in Spain for Gibraltar, we share the concerns of the citizens of Gibraltar. We believe that Gibraltarians have a right to veto any proposed change in their status and if they want to remain under British sovereignty, they should.
	We on these Benches remain wedded to the principle that the future sovereignty should not be changed without the freely and democratically expressed wish of the people of Gibraltar. They are British and are living in sovereign British territory, as they have for 300 years. Mere consultation with them is, we believe, not enough. We feel that they should be involved, as equal partners, in the reaching of any agreements which might form part of a package. I share the aspiration of my noble and learned friend Lord Howe that the Gibraltar Government will adopt a flexible approach. But bouncing them, stitching them up—or even selling them out—is absolutely unacceptable. It would be an insult to people who have fought with us and for us and who bear allegiance to the British Crown.
	From a recent Written Answer in another place, I understand that the Minister's right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary is proposing to hold a further ministerial meeting with the Spanish Foreign Minister early next year to discuss the future of Gibraltar. Is it still the Government's objective to resolve the future of the Rock by the end of next year?
	Spain has refused to recognise Gibraltar-issued ID cards and passports as valid travel documents. The European Commission has accepted the Gibraltar ID card as a valid travel and residence document for the purposes of relevant EC directives. The purpose is clearly to frustrate further the free movement of persons at the border and to harass people, as the noble Lord, Lord Brett, said.
	As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee said in its report, the present system of border controls is Xunacceptable" and wholly inappropriate between two parts of the European Union. What progress have the Government made with the Spanish authorities on ID cards, passports and other border control problems?
	Gibraltar is still a military base, and is especially useful for intelligence gathering. Bearing in mind the Government's renewed emphasis on the rapid deployment of British forces in response to crises, and that north Africa and the near and Middle East are widely regarded as regions where such crises could occur, do the Government agree that Gibraltar and its facilities provide a useful and independent forward operating base? Service manpower has already been reduced to the minimum necessary to manage the remaining defence facilities in Gibraltar. Will the Minister confirm that there will be no further defence cuts there in the short term?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, for initiating the debate. The All-Party Gibraltar Group, of which she is vice-chairman, does valuable work in bringing Gibraltar issues to the attention of Parliament. I also thank all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate.
	On 26th July this year, my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and his Spanish counterpart, Sr Josep Pique, met in London under the terms of the Brussels communique of November 1984, thereby re-launching a dialogue on Gibraltar between the Governments of Spain and the United Kingdom.
	The Government's aim in re-starting the Brussels process is precisely as set out by the Conservative Government in 1984; namely, to overcome all differences between the United Kingdom and Spain over Gibraltar. It is the Government's firm view that the present situation in which Gibraltar faces long and unpredictable border delays, telecommunications difficulties, restrictions on the use of the airport and a range of other problems are not in the interests of anyone, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, told the House so authoritatively.
	It is clearly not in Gibraltar's interest, nor is it in the interest of the United Kingdom, to see the citizens of a loyal overseas territory prevented from pulling their full weight in a European region full of opportunity. It is not in the European Union's interest for important EU business to be impeded by the Gibraltar dispute. Frankly, it is not in Spain's interest either to be at odds with a good European neighbour over this issue.
	Her Majesty's Government see a strong, and very much a shared, interest between the United Kingdom, Spain and Gibraltar in finding a lasting solution to this dispute, which has continued for close on 300 years. The present UK-Spain and Gibraltar-Spain relationship is very different from that which pertained in 1969, when Franco closed the border; or even that which pertained in 1984 when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, agreed the Brussels communique. I was enormously pleased that he decided to participate in the debate, particularly as I agreed with almost everything that he said.
	I am sorry that matters did not turn out then as the noble and learned Lord had hoped. However, I hope that he will agree that our relationship with Spain has developed enormously in recent years. We are now close partners in the European Union, in NATO and in other international fora. Spain is now one of our most important trade and investment partners and is home to half a million Britons. Millions take their holidays there every year. Similar trends can also be seen in the relationship between Gibraltar and Spain: there is much more economic interdependence and, despite all the difficulties, many Gibraltarians visit Spain regularly; hundreds have houses across the border.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, was right to ask the question: why are we doing this now? But there is a straightforward answer. We believe that, now, there is a real opportunity to resolve the historic tensions and to forge a new relationship between Gibraltar and Spain, to allow the people of Gibraltar to look forward with confidence to a better and more secure future. After the July meeting of the respective Foreign Secretaries, a further meeting was held in Barcelona on 20th November. The joint communique issued after that meeting has been placed in the Library of the House. In that communique the Ministers stated that the guiding principle of their discussion was,
	Xto build a secure, stable and prosperous future for Gibraltar and a modern, sustainable status, consistent with our common membership of NATO and the EU".
	Secondly, the Ministers declared that their shared objective was,
	Xa future where Gibraltar enjoys greater self-government and the opportunity to reap the full benefits of normal co-existence with the wider region".
	I believe that that demonstrates how far we have come since 1969.
	A number of noble Lords, most notably the noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, in her opening address, raised questions concerning discussions on sovereignty under the Brussels Process. Of course, discussions will cover sovereignty. Indeed, it is explicit in the Brussels communique, agreed by the Conservative Government in 1984, that the talks would include discussions on sovereignty. But the Barcelona communique made clear that no conclusions have yet been drawn on the nature or content of any proposals which might be put forward. Therefore, in answer to the noble Baroness's three options, it is up to the parties to discuss how the fraught issue of sovereignty might be taken forward. I make this point to the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Swynnerton. We cannot pretend that the Treaty of Utrecht simply does not exist. I shall return to that in a moment.
	As I told the House in response to a Question from my noble friend Lord Hoyle on 22nd November, the Government stand by the commitment contained in the preamble to the 1969 Constitution Order which states that Her Majesty's Government will never enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another state against their freely and democratically expressed wishes. Consequently I reiterate to my noble friend Lord Brett and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, that if agreement were reached with Spain which involved a transfer of sovereignty to Spain the wishes of the people of Gibraltar would be ascertained in a referendum.
	It is important to be as explicit as possible on this point, particularly as my noble friend Lord Hoyle asked for specific assurances. Anything which affects the sovereignty of the people of Gibraltar will be put to them in a referendum. I do not want to mince around with terms such as legal sovereignty, or how we define it. I say that anything which affects the sovereignty will be put to them. That point was made by my right honourable friend the Minister for Europe when he gave evidence to the FAC on 28th November.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, and my noble friends Lord Brett and Lord Hoyle raised questions about the participation in the talks of the Chief Minister, Mr Caruana. As I told the House on 22nd November, the Spanish Government share our view that the Government of Gibraltar have a very important contribution to make to these discussions. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Brett, will make this point to his colleagues in Gibraltar. Gibraltar is guaranteed a separate and distinct voice alongside the Foreign Secretary within the British delegation. Spanish Ministers have assured us that the Chief Minister will be treated with the respect and dignity that his position deserves. So we very much hope that Mr Caruana will accept the invitation which has been extended to him to attend future meetings. His voice on behalf of the people of Gibraltar should be heard.

Lord Brett: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. The Minister assures us about the role of the Chief Minister. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, reminded us that in 1984 Sir Joshua Hassan played a full part. Is the role proposed for the present Chief Minister of Gibraltar exactly the same as in 1984? We know that the Brussels communique led to discussions being resumed last year. Is it reasonable to believe that the role of Gibraltar's Chief Minister will be the same in 2001 as it was in 1984?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not familiar with the exact constitutional position of Mr Hassan at that point. There are two flags here but three voices. I hope that that helps the noble Lord. A distinctive voice is guaranteed to Gibraltar. Gibraltar does not have to remain silent when my right honourable friends are negotiating and talking in these fora. Gibraltar will have a distinctive voice of its own. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar will sit alongside the Foreign Secretary behind the British flag. I hope that that I am as clear as I can be about what is being offered.

Lord Hoyle: My Lords, will my noble friend explain that? She says that he would sit behind the British Minister, but would he be party to the final agreement?

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: The Minister will sit alongside—not behind in a position of less dignity or importance, but behind the British flag. I cannot say whether or not he then has the right to resile from the agreement, but I understand that that is not what he seeks or what he wants to secure in taking part.
	The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked me to assure your Lordships that nothing would be hidden in these talks. Nothing will be hidden. If Mr Caruana were to participate in these discussions, he would know that nothing was being hidden. That is an important point.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Park, was right that Her Majesty's Government believe that much is to be gained for the people of Gibraltar. We would not be making this suggestion if that was not our belief. We wish not only to end the obstacles that have plagued their everyday lives; we are thinking of the future when goods, people and services can flow freely in and out of Spain. Gibraltar can capitalise on the excellent start that it has made as a financial centre to become a major centre for financial services in the region. There is also the agreement to allow full development of the airport where matters are currently at an impasse.
	Gibraltar already enjoys a substantial measure of autonomy and Her Majesty's Government would like the people of Gibraltar to exercise greater control over their daily lives. This has to be exercised in accordance with our other treaty obligations which, in Gibraltar's case, includes the Treaty of Utrecht. It is not good enough to say that we can sweep all that on one side because human rights issues that are grossly outmoded are involved. It is a treaty and the Government do not set treaties on one side when they go past their sell-by date. We have to acknowledge that treaty. Independence could be an option only if it was done with the agreement of the Spanish Government.
	The noble Baroness, Lady Hooper, my noble friend Lord Hoyle, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and many others asked about voting rights in the European Parliament. Let me make it clear that we are committed to extending the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar in time for the elections to the European Parliament in 2004. To that end, Her Majesty's Government have now decided to seek legislative time in order to introduce the domestic legislation for that purpose. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, did not expect me to be more precise than that. It will be done in time for the election. The decision to extend the European parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar by enacting domestic legislation is a matter for the United Kingdom alone. In preparing to take that step, we have rightly been in contact with all the interested parties, including Spain.
	I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, was a little unfair in implying that the Gibraltarians were not implementing European Union legislation. Their record is generally very good and it has improved considerably since the mid-1990s. They transpose about 50 directives a year, which is not so different from the United Kingdom or, indeed, other countries in the EU.
	My noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath was right that after so many years of dispute, attitudes on both sides have hardened. For our policy to succeed, we need some new thinking—not only in the United Kingdom, not only on the Rock, but crucially, in Spain. It has to win the hearts and minds of the people of Gibraltar if the measure is to be a success. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, was right that the time has come for Spain to show its new attitude through action. We have seen the important steps that it has taken over the increase in the number of telephone numbers available. Again, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, was right when he said that we now have to look to the Spanish Government to take more steps in normalising their relationship with Gibraltar.
	I disagree again with the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire. The border delays are bad. They are now what we consider unacceptable, as my noble friend Lord Hoyle made clear. The matter has been raised by the Prime Minister, Ministers on many occasions, by the Ambassador in Madrid and, most recently, by my right honourable friend Peter Hain on 10th December.
	We also need to encourage the people of Gibraltar to have an open mind in the current talks. They need to look at the matter rationally and have an informed discussion about a future in which their Government can take a full and active part. In conclusion, I ask the House for support in what the Government believe to be a realistic policy, to take advantage of the real opportunity that now exists to forge the future, which we believe will be demonstrably better for all the parties involved, especially the people of Gibraltar.

House adjourned at nineteen minutes past nine o'clock.